Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[The Man]

Stating that it is essential to the argument is just gainsaying. You are not advancing anything here.

No, just keeping it from going backwards.



Yes, and that is consistent with an acceptance of a material world. No moving of goal posts. Without perception of color there is only electromagnetic radiation. No color.


So is our perception of color without light as in a hallucination or dream, just the firing of certain neurons.

So what is it that we perceive as color from “a material world”? It is not just electromagnetic radiation but specific characteristics of that radiation (wavelength) also the characteristics of the source or reflection of that radiation. Chemical interactions and electron energy states can depend on those characteristics even given our lack of perception.


This is just rhetoric. It's a waste of your time.

Not at all, you are using as your augment aspects that you have not fully considered. Since we can have the perception of color without light, your assertion now has become that without perception there is no color, which is as equally invalid as your assertion of no light no color.



This nonsense. Please to show me "meaning" without perception? You just state these things and they are utter nonsense. Where is "meaning" in the natural world sans consciousness? Outside of the context of consciousness the word has no meaning.

You seem to revel in repeating yourself and perhaps trying to get others to do so as well. Just as color (the representation of wavelength) has meaning without our perception of ‘color’ other words can and do represent things that are not themselves entirely dependent on our perception of them, although the words might be.

[The Man]

And how is that quantified? I have no idea what a "non-conscious expression" is. I seriously doubt such a thing exists but even I accept such a proposition of what value is it without something to perceive the expression?.

Well thanks for the edit, as it makes the reply easier. Expression was a poor choice of words on my part. Quantification, would have been a better word, which is just ‘value’ specifically the ‘value’ of the net force.


On the other hand, I suspect we are arguing past each other?.

So it would seem, I think it breaks down to this: you assert that without consciousness there is no ‘meaning’ while I assert that without ‘meaning’ “sans consciousness” you would not have what you perceive as consciousness. Both assertions fit within the current definitions of ‘meaning’.

[RandFan]

I think I have to say that this is a fairly reasonable point of view philosophically. It is possible that nothing exists except as projected by a consciousness, or that there can be no judgement of a difference between existence and non-existence without consciousness. I just don't think it's a particularly strong POV.God forbid we are every disallowed an opinion.:) I respect what you think but I don't have any basis to agree.

It's like saying that life might all be one big dream. We could make a list of possible ontologies, surely, and assert that disproving them will be impossible: aliens are keeping us in their personal zoo, etc.No. I don't think it's like that at all. I'm only saying that without consciousness there is nothing perceived and nothing quantifying or comparing. Therefore there is no perceived difference.

I wonder if this is your actual belief that you're arguing, since you remind us that it's 'largely' a POV. It reminds me of a time when I wanted to discuss a similar idea, that consciousness might be fundamental to the universe, and many members took that hypothetical suggestion as my religious position and gave me a hard time about it. I think it's important - especially for sceptics - to be able to discuss ideas with the minimum of investment and defensiveness.Without referencing my actual POV. I agree with you completely. That said, it might just be a POV but bear in mind that only those capable of POV can have one. Tautological I know but I don't know how best to express it.

The question of colour also seems another semantic argument. To put it another way, I don't think it's really clear whether 'colour' exists or arises due to the physical characteristics of a surface, the presence of light or the processes in a brain - we use the name and classify colours as a product of all of these. And asking, therefore, whether something is still red when there's no light is, to my mind, a matter of opnion and prefered definition, as is the question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes sound when no-one's there. In a similar vein, we can infer from experience that pressure waves exist when we're absent, just as we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning.I don't find your argument compelling. If we accept that electromagnetic radiation exists a priori, and I do, that doesn't mean that color exists a priori. Yes, pressure wave exist and have cause and effect relationships with the environment but sound is a perception.

That said, I really appreciate the tone of your posts. These debates have raged long before we stumbled into them and will continue long after. I think they are important regardless of one's POV.

[RandFan]

Well thanks for the edit, as it makes the reply easier. Expression was a poor choice of words on my part. Quantification, would have been a better word, which is just ‘value’ specifically the ‘value’ of the net force.

So it would seem, I think it breaks down to this: you assert that without consciousness there is no ‘meaning’ while I assert that without ‘meaning’ “sans consciousness” you would not have what you perceive as consciousness. Both assertions fit within the current definitions of ‘meaning’.Fair enough. I'm willing to move on.

Thank you.

[The Man]

<Snip>

The question of colour also seems another semantic argument. To put it another way, I don't think it's really clear whether 'colour' exists or arises due to the physical characteristics of a surface, the presence of light or the processes in a brain - we use the name and classify colours as a product of all of these. And asking, therefore, whether something is still red when there's no light is, to my mind, a matter of opnion and prefered definition, as is the question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes sound when no-one's there. In a similar vein, we can infer from experience that pressure waves exist when we're absent, just as we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning.

That is the real rub of it, John, “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning” or infer that it simply came into existence for us just as we woke up this morning in such a way that “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning”. The requirement of the consistency of the latter to the former makes the former the only relevant inference and the additional inference of the latter superfluous.

[doronshadmi]

You've introduced that "paper" in the "Deeper than primes" thread so why bring it up here? Why don't you answer the questions raised in that thread?

And the "non-locality" theme, you've brought that up numerous times in nearly every thread you started, and you've never been able to clarify it.

Hint: don't download the "paper", don't try to read it, it's a load of nonsense.

Dancing David,

I believe that you can decide what you wish or not wish to read, without any advice from me or any other person.

If you wish to communicate with me, my suggestion is to read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf .

[Dancing David]

About Non-locality and Locality please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf


So you can't say it here in common language. That is suprising. It took me about 500 words to cover the big band event.

So you don't know what you think, eh, Doron?

I know what non-locality means in conventional language, you haven't an ability to discuss consciousness, do you? I will try not to bait you.

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,

I believe that you can decide what you wish or not wish to read, without any advice from me or any other person.

If you wish to communicate with me, my suggestion is to read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf .

I read enough to know, you don't read any biology, neurology or psychology. I see that I am correct in my assumption that you are using a private idiomatic expression of language. You haven't a single part in the first five pages of that paper that even mentions abrain, and plenty of thinsg without evidence.

Again, I will try not bait you. Try to express your central premise about non-locality and consciousness in five paragraphs of fifty words.

And then try to read some neuropsychology.

[Dancing David]

So... nothing exists except elementary particles ?

I would say that some terms have greater pragmatic meaning than others, If you have a good pragmatic defintion of consciousness, I will probably agree to it. And yes, in a very basic sense all that exists is the universe. Some arrangements of thoughts have valid ability to describe and predict the behavior of the universe. others less so.

[rocketdodger]

Oh, i was hoping for better than that.

Why, lol.

Um, that is like saying that the car engine 'is all the processes in a car when it is not turned off', you were saying it was a useful term.

Levels of consciousness/awareness or levels of arousal is a different subject from what people generaly refer to as 'consciousness'. And in fact i went through something recently where I was given a benzodiazeoine, apparently I was able to respond to requests, but have only vague dream like memories of the time.

So part of what is consciousness, the ability to [process and respond to verbal requests was present but another part of consciousness, the ability to form memories, was not.

Which is precisely why I agree that "consciousness" is useless below a certain level. Certainly in the context of trying to reproduce consciousness in a machine, or understand the mechanisms (or even the content) of our own, it holds little value.

But at a higher level, it is that very imprecision or vagueness that makes it so useful in common discussion.

So when I define it like that, I am saying two things:

First, if you wish to reduce consciousness to its components in any useful way, you have to start with exactly "what is going on in the brain of you and I" -- and nothing more. I have always said that if one simply defines the components of their thoughts, so that they are forced to describe just what is there, then things like the HPC evaporate entirely.

Second, it is not useful to say things like "dogs are conscious, but fish are not." I find that to be incredibly arbitrary due to the fact that "consciousness" is so vague a term. However, it is useful to say "she was unconscious after being hit by a rock, but she has regained consciousness." Typically we don't say "her brain has regained most normal functioning, and she is able to communicate with other humans to some extent once more."

[John Freestone]

Dancing David,

I believe that you can decide what you wish or not wish to read, without any advice from me or any other person.

If you wish to communicate with me, my suggestion is to read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf .Ok, despite DD's probably very sound advice, I kept on reading the above paper. You obviously put a lot of effort into your work, so I've given it as full a treatment as I have time for.

Look, Doron, I'm not an expert in mathematics, physics or anything really, but I've been around a while and do have a certain amount of training in psychology. That's part of the background of how I judge your work. Another part is that I am already swayed by the massive amount of negative judgement here, which comes from people I have a certain amount of trust in (trust, I mean, in their reasonably advanced knowledge of maths, etc.). All of that could be wrong, of course.

Then there is my own personal experience as a young man, which is not so easy to share here, but I feel like it might help. When I was in my 20s, I began gradually to develop a philosophical-mathematical theory. The background to that was that I had always felt there was something about my intuition, my childhood way of thinking that was special and important, that the world of science and specialisation of disciplines generally had lost sight of. I thus began a series of 'profound meditations' (yeah) on 'reality', usually late into the night, and usually off my face (that helps the childhood intuitive, er, thing.... in psychology it's sometimes known as over-inclusiveness, seeing connections as more significant and useful than they truly are...in severe cases leading to psychosis, a complete break with reality altogether).

Reading your 'work' reminds me in some ways of how I felt often waking up the next afternoon to re-read my notes. I was, I can see quite clearly now, very very confused. The 'intuition' you ascribe to children's ways of thinking is interesting, but ultimately describes confusion. In the paper, you give the example of a child saying that there are more people than eyes because people are bigger than eyes. That indicates only that in a simple mind of a child it is easy to confuse physical size with counting or mathematical calculation (such as eyes=2*people) - these more refined, more advanced ways of thinking develop in our brains later in life. If we should revere the child's over-inclusive thinking, the failure to differentiate size and number, we might extend the series and revere the even greater innocence of feline mentation, or the special cleverness of a Venus Flytrap.

Your work as a whole strikes me as an attempt at squaring the circle (or rounding the square, perhaps), squeezing irrational mental processes like intuition, which you don't even define at all, into a logical system. If only people could think in two different modes at once, like you can, the adult logical way and the childish intuitive way, then a fusion of the two would give a clear understanding, and might solve Hilbert's 6th problem, whatever that is.

All of this is tantalizing - I can imagine - to you. You're on the brink of one of the most important discoveries of all time, I suppose you think. Yet you seem not to have got the interest of those who know most about the subjects you're trying to discuss. Two reasons jump out: you may be such a vastly superior intelligence than no-one can understand you; you may be very very confused.

Now again, I have to admit to ignorance on the details of your papers, but I can pick up on some of their salient features. One of these is their slipping innocently from extremely simplistic mentionings of things like children's psychology, hackneyed topological paradoxes and the problem of subject-object relations in physics into apparently quite esoteric (at least very confusing, difficult-to-follow) mathematical notation, with (sometimes) equally obscure text purporting to explain it. While minor problems will have arisen from translation from your native language, these in no way can explain this monumental chasm between your description of the problem in terms ordinary folk tend to think they understand, and your dealing with possible solutions in language the experts tell you they don't understand.

Behind this whole question of subject-object is a paradox, and I think the art of sanity lies in knowing when to shrug and accept that some things are unknown, perhaps even unknowable. I fear that if you continue to try to make headway with your theory, you will just waste more of your time and eventually get stuck, or worse still, go quite insane. Think of it this way, (preferably just with your Serial mind): there probably are mad professors trying to solve the insoluble or things beyond their personal ability to solve, therefore it is possible you are one of them.

A third possibility, of course, is that you're deliberately trying to con people with utter nonsense tacked on to street-level 'deep paradoxes of our time', but I think if you were you'd be a lot better at it, to be quite honest (or is that a double-bluff?). It seems a career choice for some, publishing books of nonsense purporting to solve the world's deepest problems. Often they say you have to return to being as little children. It's a deep desire we have, for someone to write a mathematical proof of religious intuition (and if it has no relation to religion, it wouldn't have been appropriate to post it in this thread, stating that consciousness is a law of the universe, nor would you insinuate that you have taken the 'subject' and made sense of it mathematically for the benefit of physics).

That is the real rub of it, John, “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning” or infer that it simply came into existence for us just as we woke up this morning in such a way that “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning”. The requirement of the consistency of the latter to the former makes the former the only relevant inference and the additional inference of the latter superfluous.Wow, that's a cool sentence. I'm with you except I'd tone it down a bit and say the former is the most likely inference to my personal judgement (given the massively consistent scientific evidence), and the latter an unlikely but interesting philosophical possibility. If all that ever was was your dream of reality, you would have no way of knowing. All the scientific evidence and peer-validation of ordinary experience could itself be created by your consciousness.

[Dancing David]

Why, lol.



Which is precisely why I agree that "consciousness" is useless below a certain level. Certainly in the context of trying to reproduce consciousness in a machine, or understand the mechanisms (or even the content) of our own, it holds little value.

But at a higher level, it is that very imprecision or vagueness that makes it so useful in common discussion.

So when I define it like that, I am saying two things:

First, if you wish to reduce consciousness to its components in any useful way, you have to start with exactly "what is going on in the brain of you and I" -- and nothing more. I have always said that if one simply defines the components of their thoughts, so that they are forced to describe just what is there, then things like the HPC evaporate entirely.

So we are in agreement, the common usage has some use until we enter an actual discussion of what consciousness is.

Cool.


Second, it is not useful to say things like "dogs are conscious, but fish are not." I find that to be incredibly arbitrary due to the fact that "consciousness" is so vague a term. However, it is useful to say "she was unconscious after being hit by a rock, but she has regained consciousness." Typically we don't say "her brain has regained most normal functioning, and she is able to communicate with other humans to some extent once more."


Two caveats, you can be 'unconscious' and have 'normal brain functioning' , ie sleep. But when people who work with people who have inconsciousness related to 'not normal brain functioning', there are aspects that are easier, like 'levels of arousal and awareness', which is what most people refer to when they talk about 'they became unconscious all of a sudden', which does have very clear parameters. And when you deal with alterations in brain functioning, those distinction of memory concretization and others become crucial to the discussion.

[Dancing David]

Ok, despite DD's probably very sound advice, I kept on reading the above paper. You obviously put a lot of effort into your work, so I've given it as full a treatment as I have time for.

Look, Doron, I'm not an expert in mathematics, physics or anything really, but I've been around a while and do have a certain amount of training in psychology. That's part of the background of how I judge your work. Another part is that I am already swayed by the massive amount of negative judgement here, which comes from people I have a certain amount of trust in (trust, I mean, in their reasonably advanced knowledge of maths, etc.). All of that could be wrong, of course.

Then there is my own personal experience as a young man, which is not so easy to share here, but I feel like it might help. When I was in my 20s, I began gradually to develop a philosophical-mathematical theory. The background to that was that I had always felt there was something about my intuition, my childhood way of thinking that was special and important, that the world of science and specialisation of disciplines generally had lost sight of. I thus began a series of 'profound meditations' (yeah) on 'reality', usually late into the night, and usually off my face (that helps the childhood intuitive, er, thing.... in psychology it's sometimes known as over-inclusiveness, seeing connections as more significant and useful than they truly are...in severe cases leading to psychosis, a complete break with reality altogether).

.

They are useful and imporatant, they are the 'inuitive' side of humasn, we find patterns in things, some are very valid and some are not. Yet they are crucial to healthy humans, the ability to find thos epattersns and learn which one to trust is very imporatant. That pattern recognition is part of preconscious phenomena, sensing 'danger', emotions and so many important aspects of functioning.

Unfortunatley there is more to psychosis, but magical thinking is certainly part of it. Then there is loose association, overgenralization and many more.

[John Freestone]

They are useful and imporatant, they are the 'inuitive' side of humasn, we find patterns in things, some are very valid and some are not. Yet they are crucial to healthy humans, the ability to find thos epattersns and learn which one to trust is very imporatant. That pattern recognition is part of preconscious phenomena, sensing 'danger', emotions and so many important aspects of functioning.Maybe the intuitive side of humans is important, but I think it's important to make a couple of distinctions.

For one thing, there is a particular way of thinking of 'intuition' that ascribes a kind of supernatural or spiritual or never-analysable quality to it, like the meditator's 'insight', which I believe misleads masses of humanity by persuading them that they can trust their feelings or their immediate judgement, and urges them not to think things through. Things, in other words, are very often counter-intuitive. Another way of thinking of intuition is as the expression of subconsciously processed information, apparently quite magically popping ideas into our conscious minds, yet theoretically rational, investigable and natural. The latter is my view. Our unconscious deals with masses of information, and only bothers us with some hypothesis like "It feels a bit tense in here!". Behind those sorts of 'intuitions' may be perfectly normal analysis in the brain of minute clues from the visual field of view, sounds we never consciously hear, the smell of pheromones, and who knows what else.

Secondly, how 'important' it is depends on context - important in doing what? Intuition (subconscious processing) may alert you to danger when you have no conscious reason to attribute your 'gut feeling' to, intuition might guide a mathematician towards exploring certain solutions to a problem with a similar inexplicable sense of rightness, it might make all sorts of unimportant decisions quickly in our lives, it might make us more human, fluid, interesting beings for not being conscious of where every intuitions comes from, but it doesn't seem quite so important in the rigorous processes of science, or working out what the reality of the universe might be like. Furthermore, it is quite a danger, both in our ordinary lives and in science and philosophy, because it's quite demonstrably wrong in many cases. This is the pertinent point, because 'intuition' was introduced by Doron as though it could be set in opposition to reason, and then some great philosophical synthesis erected. Intuition is not the opposite of reason, nor an atom of conscious processing, nor a distinct method of thinking, all of which seem to have been suggested.

The rational process, on the other hand, attempts to support or disprove all sorts of intuitions. It can be expressed clearly and shared with others, who can then repeat it. We can then decide such important questions as whether UFO sightings should be taken at face value. We can investigate our 'creepy feeling' in 'haunted houses' and not simply attribute it to a ghost. Examples are almost limitless. The overriding of our 'important' intuition is largely what has dragged us out of the stone age to where we are now, which often doesn't seem to be very far.

Actually, the more I think about intuition, the less important it seems. It's the relative stupidity of lower animals mistaken by superstition for magical wisdom. It's greatest importance is probably in providing quick, mechanical solutions to life's everyday issues. It may even be better to think of it as a kind of incidental froth on purely unconscious processing. For instance, we might drive from A to B virtually unconscious of the act of driving or navigating, but become aware at particular moments of impressions that may require conscious decisions. Normally, we are aware of why we 'woke up' as well (like seeing our route is blocked ahead), so we don't call it 'intuition'. However, it is perfectly possible that we might just get the urge to take a different route without knowing why, only to find out later that the usual route was blocked. Some will attribute this kind of thing to psi, but again it is perfectly possible that subliminally there was some information available to us - density of cars ahead, and a pall of smoke in the distance and the smell of burning rubber -all unnoticed - could suggest to the unconscious mind a possible pile-up. This is all very sensible in evolutionary terms: it would be a waste of energy and quite risky to bother working out such complex probabilities with awareness, from tiny bits of data input, in order to make a fully conscious decision. [edit: or perhaps that should say 'from masses of data, but of relative indeterminacy or low amplitude'] Similarly, we don't need to compute how to walk, but it requires massive unconscious computation.

Unfortunatley there is more to psychosis, but magical thinking is certainly part of it. Then there is loose association, overgenralization and many more.Or fortunately there is more to psychosis! Indeed, I wasn't intending to give a full description of psychosis. Was there a point behind that observation?

[The Man]

Wow, that's a cool sentence. I'm with you except I'd tone it down a bit and say the former is the most likely inference to my personal judgement (given the massively consistent scientific evidence), and the latter an unlikely but interesting philosophical possibility. If all that ever was was your dream of reality, you would have no way of knowing. All the scientific evidence and peer-validation of ordinary experience could itself be created by your consciousness.

Thanks.

Yeah, but what is an inference other then one’s judgment of what was not directly observed. Sure one can add those rinse cycle softeners to tone it down and it might make the clothes one chooses to ‘ware’ feel better, but that doesn’t get them any cleaner. However, once things are clean there is a lot to be said for making them and people feel and look better.

[John Freestone]

Yeah, but what is an inference other then one’s judgment of what was not directly observed.Again, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but Gramma' Fascist would like to say 'than...?'. Sorry, she can't help herself.:rolleyes:

What is 'direct observation'? Isn't everything that can be stated as a fact or opinion inferred, a hypothesis? Direct observation without the formation of such a statement (or silently as thought) is...what?...unconsciousness? Maybe it's consciousness without self-consciousness. I don't know. Anyway, it's not available to philosophy or science, since they can only work with statements. Every 'observation' in that sense, is inferred.

Sure one can add those rinse cycle softeners to tone it down and it might make the clothes one chooses to ‘ware’ feel better, but that doesn’t get them any cleaner. However, once things are clean there is a lot to be said for making them and people feel and look better.Uh? Sorry, I don't get that metaphor at all.

[The Man]

Again, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but Gramma' Fascist would like to say 'than...?'. Sorry, she can't help herself.:rolleyes:

What is 'direct observation'? Isn't everything that can be stated as a fact or opinion inferred, a hypothesis? Direct observation without the formation of such a statement (or silently as thought) is...what?...unconsciousness? Maybe it's consciousness without self-consciousness. I don't know. Anyway, it's not available to philosophy or science, since they can only work with statements. Every 'observation' in that sense, is inferred. .

You see a rock come flying towards your head, it hits you right between your eyes and it hurts that is a direct observation “a rock hit my head”.

Alternatively

You wake up, there is a rock next to you, your head hurts and has a big lump on the back, one might infer “a rock hit my head”.

Although the statements are the same and direct observation is involved in both, the actual event (rock hitting the head) was only directly observed in the first instance, in the second instance that occurrence might be inferred from what is directly observable but the actual event was not directly observed.




Uh? Sorry, I don't get that metaphor at all.

Toning things down might make us feel more comfortable by blurring the distinction between choices (if any), which in fact does little to clarify those choices or show if in fact there is some or no distinctions between them.

[John Freestone]

You see a rock come flying towards your head, it hits you right between your eyes and it hurts that is a direct observation “a rock hit my head”.

Alternatively

You wake up, there is a rock next to you, your head hurts and has a big lump on the back, one might infer “a rock hit my head”.

Although the statements are the same and direct observation is involved in both, the actual event (rock hitting the head) was only directly observed in the first instance, in the second instance that occurrence might be inferred from what is directly observable but the actual event was not directly observed.I understand, but disagree. To me, the first instance is also an inference. It is more persuasive, but at some level one is judging that what one is seeing is a real rock, causing real pain, rather than a hallucination or dream. Hallucinations are so common that we barely notice them. We form hypotheses unconsciously about what we think we can see, and then sometimes those turn out to be false. For instance, I might arrive in my car at a junction and 'see' a 'rock' coming towards my windscreen, a moment later to recognise it as a small bird that just happened to look like a rock. I 'see' a small dog run out in front of the car, only a moment later it resolves into a paper bag blown by the wind. We just forget loads of moments like that.

It's tempting to just solve this by fast-forwarding to the 'end' as it were, when we know the truth, but there doesn't seem to be any philophically sound judgement of the moment when all relevant information has been gathered. So I don't think a statement of knowledge can be considered 'directly observed'.

Then there is the problem of language, which involves classification of things. You may complain that a rock hit you on your head to your friend, whom you're pretty sure you saw throwing it. He may refute this, saying that he threw a 'small stone' or 'compacted piece of mud'.

Fine distinctions these may be, but the subject of the thread, whether consciousness is a basic law, isn't going to be cracked with a sledgehammer of an argument that rocks are simple to observe hitting heads. We got to this point of yours: That is the real rub of it, John, “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning” or infer that it simply came into existence for us just as we woke up this morning in such a way that “we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning”. The requirement of the consistency of the latter to the former makes the former the only relevant inference and the additional inference of the latter superfluous.The 'requirement of consistency', to my mind, is imagined. You seem to be suggesting that when we wake up, even if the world suddenly comes into existence at that moment, it involves the fact that we have just woken up and it is morning as part of its grand illusion. This is another level of the problem of observation and inference, to do with the reliability of memory, and also the consistency of the world when we're not observing it. The world might not be, as you suggest, suddenly forming, and having as part of it a 'fact' of being morning. There may be no such fact. There may only be my consciousness, and everything in it completely imaginary. However, it's only a philosophical curiosity, perhaps, and the view that there's an objective world out there that we can analyse is persuasive.

All this reminds me of David Hume, Wittgenstein and other philosphers, and this article on projectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectivism)is interesting. It mentions the example of colour.

[The Man]

I understand, but disagree. To me, the first instance is also an inference. It is more persuasive, but at some level one is judging that what one is seeing is a real rock, causing real pain, rather than a hallucination or dream. Hallucinations are so common that we barely notice them. We form hypotheses unconsciously about what we think we can see, and then sometimes those turn out to be false. For instance, I might arrive in my car at a junction and 'see' a 'rock' coming towards my windscreen, a moment later to recognise it as a small bird that just happened to look like a rock. I 'see' a small dog run out in front of the car, only a moment later it resolves into a paper bag blown by the wind. We just forget loads of moments like that.

You seem to be focusing on the reality of what we might observe or think we observe, but I was not inferring any reality to observation. Just differentiating what we do observe (direct observation) and what we do not.



It's tempting to just solve this by fast-forwarding to the 'end' as it were, when we know the truth, but there doesn't seem to be any philophically sound judgement of the moment when all relevant information has been gathered. So I don't think a statement of knowledge can be considered 'directly observed'.

Well their would not have been much point in you writing such “statements of knowledge” if you did not think they would be ‘directly observed’


Then there is the problem of language, which involves classification of things. You may complain that a rock hit you on your head to your friend, whom you're pretty sure you saw throwing it. He may refute this, saying that he threw a 'small stone' or 'compacted piece of mud'.

A rock by any other name, does it not hurt as much?


Fine distinctions these may be, but the subject of the thread, whether consciousness is a basic law, isn't going to be cracked with a sledgehammer of an argument that rocks are simple to observe hitting heads.

I was simply responding to your query “What is 'direct observation'?” you can “sledgehammer” whatever other significance to it that you choose, but I was not.



We got to this point of yours: The 'requirement of consistency', to my mind, is imagined. You seem to be suggesting that when we wake up, even if the world suddenly comes into existence at that moment, it involves the fact that we have just woken up and it is morning as part of its grand illusion. This is another level of the problem of observation and inference, to do with the reliability of memory, and also the consistency of the world when we're not observing it. The world might not be, as you suggest, suddenly forming, and having as part of it a 'fact' of being morning. There may be no such fact. There may only be my consciousness, and everything in it completely imaginary. However, it's only a philosophical curiosity, perhaps, and the view that there's an objective world out there that we can analyse is persuasive.

Imagined or not the fact remains that the illusion or an ojective world must be indistinguishable, as seems to the primary gist of your post. That is the consistency of which I was speaking, were they inconsistent we could make some definitive distinction between them. As you say “the view that there's an objective world out there that we can analyse is persuasive” so the illusion or the spontaneous creation of a seemingly continuing objective world as we regain ‘consciousness’ (which was just an example I used) must be consistent with that persuasive perception of an objective world or that perception would not be so persuasive.



All this reminds me of David Hume, Wittgenstein and other philosphers, and this article on projectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectivism)is interesting. It mentions the example of colour


Well I will have to check out that link later as I am heading to bed and hoping I can infer the continued existence of the universe, while I sleep, tomorrow.

[doronshadmi]

By hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but a side effect of the necessity of complex systems to survive the independency of the objects that can be found within and without it.

Furthermore, most of the processes within some conscious complex system are unconscious and governed by nature's objective rules including the replication of more conscious complex systems.

Conscious complex systems can discover nature's objective rules and then they can manipulate them for their own purpose, where the manipulation is always limited to the inherent objective state of the manipulated objects.

It means that the relations between objects may be changed but the objects are inherently non-changeable things.

So, by hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but some manipulation between objects that has no influence on the objects.

In that case we have to ask:

Do we have to totally ignore consciousness as a significant factor of some realm, or this realm is not less than the relations between objects?

In this case hard objectivism is a partial picture of such a realm, and cannot be understood without the relations between objects.

Furthermore, by Modern Physics the independent objectivity of Quantum Objects is under question, where macro objects are nothing but some particular assembly that has no independent and objective existence of its own.

My suggestion is that any researchable realm is not less than Relation\Element Interactions where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf ).

As about "Moon\Consciousness" relations, a conscious complex system can blow the Moon out of the sky (by developing and using the appropriate technology) in any given time, which is something that the objectivity of the Moon cannot achieve.

[doronshadmi]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150662&postcount=226

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.jpg

As can be seen, Relation (non-locality) and Element (locality) exist both as distinct and non-distinct (singularity) state, where Consciousness is the a significant factor of the interaction between the distinct and the non-distinct.

[TMiguel]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150662&postcount=226

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.jpg

As can be seen, Relation (non-locality) and Element (locality) exist both as distinct and non-distinct (singularity) state, where Consciousness is the a significant factor of the interaction between the distinct and the non-distinct.
That is nonsense.

POP Quiz!
What is a singularity?

[TMiguel]

By hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but a side effect of the necessity of complex systems to survive the independency of the objects that can be found within and without it.
That was not objective at all. You just said that the “conscious is the bi-product of a system to survive the independent objects that are inside but it does not have”.

Furthermore, most of the processes within some conscious complex system are unconscious and governed by nature's objective rules including the replication of more conscious complex systems.
I guess internal consistency is too much to ask.

Conscious complex systems can discover nature's objective rules and then they can manipulate them for their own purpose, where the manipulation is always limited to the inherent objective state of the manipulated objects.
Although you made a complete failure to define conscious, you brought purpose into play. From my field of study I deal whit things like stable systems, there are system that are build to adapt themselves to new conditions in order to fulfil it’s purpose. Are you saying that a mechanism is conscious?

So, by hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but some manipulation between objects that has no influence on the objects.
WOW, Wait a second, did you just said:
By hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but a side effect of the necessity of complex systems to survive the independency of the objects that can be found within and without it.
Internal consistency is too much to ask.
But there is another problem, if an object interacts whit another, how they don’t have any influence whit another?

In that case we have to ask:

Do we have to totally ignore consciousness as a significant factor of some realm, or this realm is not less than the relations between objects?
You mean when you die you go to Heaven?

In this case hard objectivism is a partial picture of such a realm, and cannot be understood without the relations between objects.
Hard objectivism is not your strong point, is it?

Furthermore, by Modern Physics the independent objectivity of Quantum Objects is under question, where macro objects are nothing but some particular assembly that has no independent and objective existence of its own.
I don’t know what Quantum mechanics has to do whit anything. Plus it makes no difference if you are made out of ducks or pixie dust, you are still here reading this message and trying to figure out what heck has conscious, or whatever does it have to do whit anything.

My suggestion is that any researchable realm is not less than Relation\Element Interactions where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf ).
This pdfs have been submitted to many times, and to many times they have been told you that they are Worthless.
So please be kind to grab your pdfs and shove it.

As about "Moon\Consciousness" relations, a conscious complex system can blow the Moon out of the sky (by developing and using the appropriate technology) in any given time, which is something that the objectivity of the Moon cannot achieve.
Is he talking about the Earth’s natural satellite that we commonly happen to refer has the “Moon”?
And that he just stated that “conscious has something to do whit the Moon, and that you can Explode the Moon whit your mind, which is something that the Moon itself can not do because the Moon is to stupid”?
WTF?:eek::shocked:

[doronshadmi]

TMiguel,

Your last two posts are perfect examples of a person that simply don't understand what he reads before he replies, so let me help other people to see each one of your misunderstandings, because it may help them to understand better what I have to say:


By hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but a side effect of the necessity of complex systems to survive the independency of the objects that can be found within and without it.
That was not objective at all. You just said that the “conscious is the bi-product of a system to survive the independent objects that are inside but it does not have”.

Hard objectivist looks at consciousness as some illusion that has no objective existence of its own, for example he claims that consciousness is based on the independency of the objects within and without us.



Conscious complex systems can discover nature's objective rules and then they can manipulate them for their own purpose, where the manipulation is always limited to the inherent objective state of the manipulated objects.
Although you made a complete failure to define conscious, you brought purpose into play. From my field of study I deal whit things like stable systems, there are system that are build to adapt themselves to new conditions in order to fulfil it’s purpose. Are you saying that a mechanism is conscious?

I say that this is the viewpoint of some hard objectivist about consciousness (and I am not a hard objectivist, which is something that you have failed to understand).



So, by hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but some manipulation between objects that has no influence on the objects.
WOW, Wait a second, did you just said:

By hard objectivism consciousness is nothing but a side effect of the necessity of complex systems to survive the independency of the objects that can be found within and without it.
Internal consistency is too much to ask.
It is consistent. In both cases objects are independent of any manipulation because they have an internal property that is naturally unchanged (that why they are called objects in the first place by a hard objectivist (and I am not a hard objectivist)).

But there is another problem, if an object interacts whit another, how they don’t have any influence whit another?
By a hard objectivist (which is not me) only the relations between them are changed but each object saves its objectivity independently of this change (in this case I agree that our realm is not less than cnange and non-change).



In that case we have to ask:

Do we have to totally ignore consciousness as a significant factor of some realm, or this realm is not less than the relations between objects?
You mean when you die you go to Heaven?
No, in this realm (the researchable one).



In this case hard objectivism is a partial picture of such a realm, and cannot be understood without the relations between objects.
Hard objectivism is not your strong point, is it?
As I said, I disagree with hard objectivism, and you had the chance to get it if you read my post until the end of it before you reply separately to each part of it, which prevents from you to understand what you read.



Furthermore, by Modern Physics the independent objectivity of Quantum Objects is under question, where macro objects are nothing but some particular assembly that has no independent and objective existence of its own.
I don’t know what Quantum mechanics has to do whit anything. Plus it makes no difference if you are made out of ducks or pixie dust, you are still here reading this message and trying to figure out what heck has conscious, or whatever does it have to do whit anything.
I suggest you to read http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm in order to understand better the relations between QM and consciousness.



My suggestion is that any researchable realm is not less than Relation\Element Interactions where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf ).
This pdfs have been submitted to many times, and to many times they have been told you that they are Worthless.
So please be kind to grab your pdfs and shove it.

TMiguel, you have failed to get my two last posts and you are not (yet) in a position to criticize them. You need to learn more and expand your current narrow knowledge on this subject.



As about "Moon\Consciousness" relations, a conscious complex system can blow the Moon out of the sky (by developing and using the appropriate technology) in any given time, which is something that the objectivity of the Moon cannot achieve.
Is he talking about the Earth’s natural satellite that we commonly happen to refer has the “Moon”?
And that he just stated that “conscious has something to do whit the Moon, and that you can Explode the Moon whit your mind, which is something that the Moon itself can not do because the Moon is to stupid”?
WTF?
Einstein said that the Moon exists whether we look at it or not. (http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/index.cfm?DA3BD27F-F6BA-C7DF-784A-698F7BDB5128 )

He disagreed with the probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and specially he was against any attempt to give macro objects such as the Moon an existence that depends on the existence of the observer (which may be a claim of a hard anti-objectivist (and I disagree with hard objectivism)).

In my opinion, the Moon exists whether someone looks at it or not, but the Moon's existence definitely depends on a conscious complex system that has the appropriate technology to blow it out of the sky.

[doronshadmi]

That is nonsense.

POP Quiz!
What is a singularity?
Nice reply.

First you conclude something, then you ask questions.

Singularity is a state where nothing is compareble and nothing is distinct.

[TMiguel]

TMiguel,

Your last two posts are perfect examples of a person that simply don't understand what he reads before he replies, so let me help other people to see each one of your misunderstandings, because it may help them to understand better what I have to say:
In case you haven’t notice, you are the one that failed even to present the most simple of the points. And clearly you can not make a coherent statement. If I am wrong then you are able to point what is wrong, But you can’t you never did and you can not do, because you can not show something that it is not there.

Hard objectivist looks at consciousness as some illusion that has no objective existence of its own, for example he claims that consciousness is based on the independency of the objects within and without us.
In the view of some one that makes sense there is no such thing has “Hard objectivism” or you either are objective or you are not. But this is some how irrelevant because you are moving the goal post, that is your statement and it is there for everyone to see.

I say that this is the viewpoint of some hard objectivist about consciousness (and I am not a hard objectivist, which is something that you have failed to understand).
I did not failed to understand anything, you are the one that failed to understand that I do not care what you call yourself, you make a statement and your statement must hold or not.

It is consistent. In both cases objects are independent of any manipulation because they have an internal property that is naturally unchanged (that why they are called objects in the first place by a hard objectivist (and I am not a hard objectivist)).
No it is not! You are just trying to mask the fact that you did fatal mistake in your argument, and revealed for everyone to see that you that you don’t know nothing, you just wing it and whatever crap gets out of your mouth you write without eve caring if it makes sense or not.

By a hard objectivist (which is not me) only the relations between them are changed but each object save its objectivity independently of this change.
You stated that related elements had nothing to do whit each other, absurdity in its very nature. Stating that sometimes it is possible to change certain properties while conserving others is a completely different thing, but that is not what you have stated.

No, in this realm (the researchable one).
What is a realm then?

As I said, I disagree with hard objectivism, and you had the chance to get it if you read my post until the end of it before you reply separately to each part of it, which prevents from you to understand what you read.
Objectivism is being able to succinctly, decisively and without doubt state what it is you are implying. Not being objective has you so correctly indicated means that you do not tell anything in a way that makes sense.

I suggest you to read http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm in order to understand better the relations between QM and consciousness.
If it isn’t your standard pdf is something else you redirect to. You don’t have the ability to make an argument nor to make a point. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do whit consciousness.
Get an education!

TMiguel, you have failed to get my two last posts and you are not (yet) in a position to criticize them. You need to learn more and expand your current narrow knowledge on this subject.
I did understand your post for what they are, you talk about lots of things which I perfectly know what they mean but it is absolutely nothing of what you are implying.
You say singularity allot, you do not know what it is, you wouldn’t recognise it if I gave you a box full of it.

Einstein said that the Moon exists whether we look at it or not. (http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/index.cfm?DA3BD27F-F6BA-C7DF-784A-698F7BDB5128 )
I don’t think he did say that, but I can guarantee you that he taught that.

He disagreed with the probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
And so has many people even today, so what?

and specially he was against any attempt to give macro objects such as the Moon an existence that depends on the existence of the observer (which may be a claim of a hard anti-objectivist (and I disagree with hard objectivism)).
There is nothing in this world in which the existence depends of the observer, and absolutely no real theory about it. You made one of the most common misconceptions of the uncertainty principle mixed whit the perspective of the theory of relativity.

In my opinion, the Moon exists whether someone looks at it or not, but the Moon's existence definitely depends on a conscious complex system that has the appropriate technology to blow it out of the sky.
If there was no life on this planet, the moon would still be there. And being able to blow up things is not in any way an indication of conscience, we can not blow up the moon even if we wanted to (no we don’t have the technology for that).
Besides that are tones of cosmic events that completely obliterates entire systems of planets and stars. In your point of view those cosmic events are conscious and we are not.

[TMiguel]

Nice reply.

First you conclude something, then you ask questions.

Singularity is a state where nothing is compareble and nothing is distinct.

I asked because obviously you don’t know the answer, and guess what. YOU ARE WRONG!

Singularity – Undefined point.

Can you give an example?
Let me give you a hint:
Where are the singularities on this function? (2x+3x^2)/[(x-1)(x+1)]

[doronshadmi]

...there is no such thing has “Hard objectivism” or you either are objective or you are not.
This is the Logic of 0,1 point of view on this subject that can get things only in terms of objectivism or anti-objectivism.

Because of this poor logic you are unable to understand anything that is not the trivial case of Black\White reasoning.

[doronshadmi]

I asked because obviously you don’t know the answer, and guess what. YOU ARE WRONG!

Singularity – Undefined point.

Can you give an example?
Let me give you a hint:
Where are the singularities on this function? (2x+3x^2)/[(x-1)(x+1)]
Again your viewpoint is limited to locality (some undefined point).

Singularity is a state where nothing is compareble and nothing is distinct.

In that state concepts like points, lines, etc ... are meaningless.

Save your trivial and wrong game to your friends.

[TMiguel]

Again your viewpoint is limited to locality (some undefined point).
Can’t you see that you are wrong?

Singularity is a state where nothing is compareble and nothing is distinct.

In that state concepts like points, lines, etc ... are meaningless.

Save your trivial and wrong game to your friends.[/QUOTE]
Dude, this is not arguable, a singularity is a well defined mathematical term and that is not yours to twist it in whatever your deluded mind wants.

AND ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTIONS!

[doronshadmi]

Dude, this is not arguable, a singularity is a well defined mathematical term and that is not yours to twist it in whatever your deluded mind wants.

AND ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTIONS!
No.

Singularity does not belong to any current community of people that are unable to get more general viewpoint of this important concept.

At Singularity any attempt to use distinct objects like points, is fundamentally wrong, and therefore your question is wrong.

Futhermore, by your approach you are out of topic.

[doronshadmi]

If there was no life on this planet, the moon would still be there. And being able to blow up things is not in any way an indication of conscience, we can not blow up the moon even if we wanted to (no we don’t have the technology for that).
Besides that are tones of cosmic events that completely obliterates entire systems of planets and stars. In your point of view those cosmic events are conscious and we are not.
By developing the appropriate technology, a conscious complex system can choose to blow up some star, which is something that unconscious system cannot do.

[TMiguel]

Singularity does not belong to any current community of people that are unable to get more general viewpoint of this important concept.


Yes it is, it was first defined by mathematicians, get your own damn terms and define what the heck they mean.
Or I will simply start to refer to everything has Marklar.
Then Marklar doesn’t Marklar what Marlklar Marklar, and Marklar Marklar the Marklar more Marklar. (Even this makes more sense then what you say).

[doronshadmi]

Yes it is, it was first defined by mathematicians, get your own damn terms and define what the heck they mean.
Or I will simply start to refer to everything has Marklar.
Then Marklar doesn’t Marklar what Marlklar Marklar, and Marklar Marklar the Marklar more Marklar. (Even this makes more sense then what you say).
This is a good example of how hard objectivism works.

Not only physical things are not changeable but also notions are not changeable.

In other words, hard objectivism is an anti-evolutionist approach that ignores mutations in already existing things, whether they are abstract or not.

From this creationist point of view, everything already exists and it is not changeable.

By this approach consciousness' development is nothing but an illusion because there is no development if anything (abstract or not) already exists and unchanged.

On the contrary hard anti-objectivism claims that everything is changeable and nothing is stable.

In my opinion, any researchable realm cannot be totally non-changeable or totally changeable.

In other words, since the known realm is researchable, it is an interaction between the changeable and the non-changeable, where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction.

As a result also already agreed terms are changeable by deeper generalization.

Actually the ability to interact between the stable and the non-stable is the story of real science, where any extreme approach that ignores intermediate interactions between the stable and the unstable is an anti-scientific and fanatic point of view that rejects realm's researchability.

When examining the source of this anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist dogma we find that the hard core source is the community of pure mathematicians that uses Black\White reasoning as the one and only one valid viewpoint, which is anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist by definition.

This fanatic approach trickles to modern science any gives it an anti-scientist flavor that is beyond any criticism, like any "good" religious dogma.

Do we have to do something about it?

In my opinion the answer is: Yes! and this forum is one of the bast places to to that.

[TMiguel]

This is a good example of how hard objectivism works.

Not only physical things are not changeable but also notions are not changeable.
Something you made up.

In other words, hard objectivism is an anti-evolutionist approach that ignores mutations in already existing things, whether they are abstract or not.
That this something you made up sucks (what is new?).

From this creationist point of view, everything already exists and it is not changeable.
Now slipped up creationism, why?

By this approach consciousness' development is nothing but an illusion because there is no development if anything (abstract or not) already exists and unchanged.
Nonsensical statement.

On the contrary hard anti-objectivism claims that everything is changeable and nothing is stable.
You already been taught to drop the “hard” or on objectivism, anyways you are stating that you shouldn’t be accurate and objective, which is nonsense.

In my opinion, any researchable realm cannot be totally non-changeable or totally changeable.

In other words, since the known realm is researchable, it is an interaction between the changeable and the non-changeable, where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction.
What is a realm?

As a result also already agreed terms are changeable by deeper generalization.

Actually the ability to interact between the stable and the non-stable is the story of real science, where any extreme approach that ignores intermediate interactions between the stable and the unstable is an anti-scientific and fanatic point of view that rejects realm's researchability.
Speculative nonsense.

When examining the source of this anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist dogma we find that the hard core source is the community of pure mathematicians that uses Black\White reasoning as the one and only one valid viewpoint, which is anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist by definition.
I don’t why creationist was brought into play, anyways creationist:
1. Are not objective
2. Are not mathematicians
3. And they do not use reason

This fanatic approach trickles to modern science any gives it an anti-scientist flavor that is beyond any criticism, like any "good" religious dogma.

Do we have to do something about it?

In my opinion the answer is: Yes! and this forum is one of the bast places to to that.
Then YOU CAN START BY SHUTING THE HELL UP!

[The Man]

By developing the appropriate technology, a conscious complex system can choose to blow up some star, which is something that unconscious system cannot do.

You do realize that a main sequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) star is already being blown up, that outwardly directed force is just balanced by the inwardly directed force of gravity. When that balance can no longer be maintained (when the hydrogen fuel is gone) the star expands to a red giant. Later (when all fusion fuel is gone) the balance is reverse and gravitational collapse can result in a Super Nova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nova) explosion. How is it “a conscious complex system can choose to blow up” something that an “unconscious system” (fusion) is already blowing up?

[doronshadmi]

You do realize that a main sequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) star is already being blown up, that outwardly directed force is just balanced by the inwardly directed force of gravity. When that balance can no longer be maintained (when the hydrogen fuel is gone) the star expands to a red giant. Later (when all fusion fuel is gone) the balance is reverse and gravitational collapse can result in a Super Nova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nova) explosion. How is it “a conscious complex system can choose to blow up” something that an “unconscious system” (fusion) is already blowing up?
Do you realize that a conscious complex system can develop a technology that enables it to blow a star even it is not in the supernova stage of its existence (and it can be done whenever a conscious complex system chooses to do it)?

This is the devastating aspect of a conscious complex system, now think what can be done by using this ability in order to be developed.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I believe that consciousness is its own trap in that a living creature, who has consciousness of being alive, cannot help needing to reassure itself that life as it knows it, has some sort of sense and purpose. That its consciousness has to have a deeper cause. An entity who is conscious of itself and who comes to realize that its consciousness is most likely the cause of a very down to earth sum of physical elements, is most likely an entity who will feel dead and useless like a piece of coal.

[doronshadmi]

An entity who is conscious of itself and who comes to realize that its consciousness is most likely the cause of a very down to earth sum of physical elements, is most likely an entity who will feel dead and useless like a piece of coal.
Unless it chooses to do something about this feeling.

[doronshadmi]

Then YOU CAN START BY SHUTING THE HELL UP!

Another example of a fanatic approach.

On the contrary I wish for you that nobody will shut you up, but you.

[TMiguel]

Another example of a fanatic approach.

Yes call other people fanatics when you can't reason against them.

[John Freestone]

I believe that consciousness is its own trap in that a living creature, who has consciousness of being alive, cannot help needing to reassure itself that life as it knows it, has some sort of sense and purpose. That its consciousness has to have a deeper cause. An entity who is conscious of itself and who comes to realize that its consciousness is most likely the cause of a very down to earth sum of physical elements, is most likely an entity who will feel dead and useless like a piece of coal.Don't you mean the other way round, Ron (bold bit)? ...is caused by...? Also, don't you mean that the first kind wants to find some conscious cause of his consciousness (like God, in whose image he is made), and the latter sees that his consciousness may have emerged from 'meaningless' stuff? The latter, surely, can still believe that his consciousness has some 'deeper cause', though material and down-to-earth, and he may also believe with reason that life has some sort of sense and purpose, just not a supernatural one. I hope so, anyway. I'm sick of feeling like a piece of coal! Thanks for posting those simple, practical thoughts in the midst of this metaphysical hide-and-seek.

Doron Shadmi, I became a little more interested in your ideas recently, although I must be clear that I'm not saying you're right in anything you say. I think some of your points are interesting. At a simple, observable level, for instance, our normal experience of opinion about something is of a 0-1 kind, not 0 or 1. I have often contemplated this idea myself, that perhaps all of our ideas about the world are based on an erroneous digitization of everything. Perhaps, I used to think, everything is made of grades of qualities, and science gets itself all messed up because it measures and quantifies things. Perhaps, even more fundamentally, even the logic true-false dichotomy that we put centrally in our whole culture, is wrong.

There is of course a paradox that opens up here, though: the idea of recognising the falsehood of [0,1] (as you like to denote the idea) is itself a binary logic. Furthermore, if we tried to discover things and develop science without the idea of truth and falsehood and their mutual exclusivity, I'm not sure we'd get very far. All of your potentially profound meditations and mathematical sketches about the nature of this 'realm' would presumably be subject to your own transcendence of duality-thinking, and thus no-one could say whether you were right or wrong.

The existence of paradox itself is not reason to dismiss the idea, of course. The orthodox understanding of reality is riddled with paradoxes.

At the same time, I have to concur with some of the other objections against your content...

In other words, hard objectivism is an anti-evolutionist approach that ignores mutations in already existing things, whether they are abstract or not.Certainly not. ETNS is surely a perfect example of an objective science accepting mutations of already existing things.

From this creationist point of view, everything already exists and it is not changeable.Surely it is confusing to suggest that the 'objectivist' viewpoint (if that's what you mean by 'this') is 'creationist'. Surely the Big Bang Theory must be evolutionary enough, isn't it?

By this approach consciousness' development is nothing but an illusion because there is no development if anything (abstract or not) already exists and unchanged.But consciousness isn't thought of as an illusion, and things aren't thought of as unchanging. Consciousness is thought of as an emergent phenomenon of things because those things changed. Or are you suggesting that the mistake is to think that all the energy-matter and space-time was there from the Big Bang, and only the relationships, the forms of things, are thought to have changed? Are you suggesting that actual new physical existent things are created, and if so, what becomes of the conservation of energy?

The rest of this just loses me. I concur with others' requests that you either use standard terms or coin new ones, but define them, or at least that you describe your ideas in ordinary everyday language if that's not too much trouble. The esoteric nature of your posts does make them appear likely to be just incoherent ramblings, although I appreciate that there's a language problem for you - isn't Greek your first language?

On the contrary hard anti-objectivism claims that everything is changeable and nothing is stable.

In my opinion, any researchable realm cannot be totally non-changeable or totally changeable.

In other words, since the known realm is researchable, it is an interaction between the changeable and the non-changeable, where consciousness' development is a significant factor of this interaction.

As a result also already agreed terms are changeable by deeper generalization.

Actually the ability to interact between the stable and the non-stable is the story of real science, where any extreme approach that ignores intermediate interactions between the stable and the unstable is an anti-scientific and fanatic point of view that rejects realm's researchability.

When examining the source of this anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist dogma we find that the hard core source is the community of pure mathematicians that uses Black\White reasoning as the one and only one valid viewpoint, which is anti-scientific and anti-evolutionist by definition.That's a very black-and-white proposition.

This fanatic approach trickles to modern science any gives it an anti-scientist flavor that is beyond any criticism, like any "good" religious dogma.I wonder if all this sudden venom points to the real meaning of all your supposedly deep philosophy - you're just pissed off with scientists for some reason. I've heard some rumours of certain pressures in science to limit the scope of research, through funding and so on, but this view of science being beyond criticism or like a religious dogma seems rather weak (although I'm embarrassed to remember saying something a bit like it a while back!). All you have to do to overturn science is stop going off at tangents and round in circles, and make sound, well-constructed, well-defined arguments that at least join up somewhere with the well-defined concepts everyone else uses, and I'm sure scientists will give you some respect and think about what you have to say. And if you reckon you can significantly contribute to the solution to a Hilbert problem, fame and fortune awaits.

Do we have to do something about it?'Yo', according to your own argument (as Edward de Bono might reply - it means 'something other than yes and no').

In my opinion the answer is: Yes! and this forum is one of the bast places to to that.I've no idea about that. I guess if you have to do it, you have to do it somewhere.

[doronshadmi]

Yes call other people fanatics when you can't reason against them.
A person that claims that he knows some truth which is stronger than his own existence, is a fanatic parson.

For example:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4097096&postcount=183

It does not depend in any way on the perception of the mathematician, nor in any element of the real world for that matter. That is why MATH is the only field of knowledge that man ever possessed that is ABSOLUT, it is more truth then the possibility you actually exist.

You wasted a perfectly good opportunity to shut up.

[John Freestone]

'Yo', according to your own argument (as Edward de Bono might reply - it means 'something other than yes and no').Whoops, I think that should be 'po'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po:_Beyond_Yes_and_No

[TMiguel]

A person that claims that he knows some truth which is stronger than his own existence, is a fanatic parson.

For example:

You are once again making another reference while avoiding at all costs to argument against me.
You are a FAILURE, a FRAUDE and CRANK! You have been exposed has so, but yet you are unwillingly to give up on this mad quest.
If you CAN’T present an argument, if you CAN’T talk sense then DON’T talk at all.

I personally grew tiered of beating over your head whit an hammer just to realise that it doesn’t have a brain, you’re a definitively a lost case and that’s why you ended up on my ignore list.
Ramble all you want, until you can come up whit a sentence that makes sense, you SHAL BE IGNORED!

[John Freestone]

Doron, in the midst of being quite rude to TMiguel, you saidI suggest you to read http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm in order to understand better the relations between QM and consciousness.Ah, F David Peat. Moral of the story, never trust anyone whose name begins with a lone initial...or is that Father David?

The article is, er, interesting, but really very speculative. If this is the background to your mathematical meditations, and your source on the supposed connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness, you are quite misguided IMO, and rude to send someone off to get that as a solution to their ignorance. How can you possibly be serious - to suggest that some fringe scientist's mystical ramblings are what is missing from TMiguel's picture of things?

Is that a harsh judgement of Dr Peat? Am I being a scientific dogmatist? Well, he believes in the array of superstitions conjoured up by C G Jung, the 'collective unconscious', 'synchronicity' and the 'archetypes'. Ok, these may just possibly be real (I say, to avoid dogmatism), but if so they seem to have evaded scientific detection. Furthermore, they are a typical 20th Century reinvention of ancient magical propositions, emotionally powerful and intuitively persuasive, but ultimately based on muddled and wishful thinking. Behind all such thinking is almost always a prior belief in spirit or the separateness of mind-stuff from matter-stuff (hence their 'connection')...and that's what we find with Peat.

I'm not a physicist, but I'm surprised Peat got his PhD (assuming his CV isn't a lie). His head is full of utterly speculative phenomena, and his articles go off on rambling, irrelevant tangents that pretend to support some vague central thesis - that he's on the verge of a new physics for the 21st Century. He's giving talks and selling books and week long courses and asking for donations on his site, I notice, another worrying sign.

I love this from the synopsis of his book, Synchronicity:

Quantum Theory, Jung's Scarab,
Dickens's Prophetic Dream,
the Naskapi Indian Oracles...
They all connect in SynchronicityWhat about crop circles, dolphins and aliens? All things connect in synchronicity - that's the idea. :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

I see that Doron , you still avoid using plain language and resort to allusion, how do you know what you think?

Can you state it plainly?

[doronshadmi]

I'm not a physicist, but I'm surprised Peat got his PhD (assuming his CV isn't a lie).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._David_Peat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science


If this is the background to your mathematical meditations, and your source on the supposed connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness, you are quite misguided IMO, and rude to send someone off to get that as a solution to their ignorance.

My background to my mathematical meditations can be reduced to a very simple question, which is:

What is needed to get number 2?

[The Man]

Do you realize that a conscious complex system can develop a technology that enables it to blow a star even it is not in the supernova stage of its existence (and it can be done whenever a conscious complex system chooses to do it)?

So I guess you did not and still do not realize that a star is blowing up even before “the supernova stage of its existence”.

You refer to “a conscious complex system can develop a technology that enables it” this would indicate the ability to “blow a star even it is not in the supernova stage of its existence” resides with the “technology” and not the “conscious complex system”. In fact expressing a limitation of a “conscious complex system” to its reliance on the “technology that enables it“. As technology is just the application of science or as some might say the application of 'the basic rules of physics', a “conscious complex system” would be limited by those 'rules' which would limit the “technology that enables it“. It would seem your are asserting the dependence of a “conscious complex system” on the basic rules of physics and not consciousness itself as a basic rule of physics as suggested by the OP.



This is the devastating aspect of a conscious complex system, now think what can be done by using this ability in order to be developed.

As you appear to express it is the “devastating aspect” of the “technology that enables it” which is limited by and thus limits the enabling of a “conscious complex system” to 'the basic rules of physics'.

[John Freestone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._David_Peat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Ok, he's a real person.


My background to my mathematical meditations can be reduced to a very simple question, which is:

What is needed to get number 2?

And your answer? I'm trying to refrain from suggesting 'eat + wait', but I'm so weak-willed....

[The Man]

What is needed to get number 2?


For me it usually takes a good meal, some time, then a newspapers and hopefully a working toilet with a comfortable seat.

Oh wait, your asked “What is needed to get number 2?” not what is needed to go number 2, sorry that was my fault.

ETA: I guess my will is weaker then yours John.

[John Freestone]

For me it usually takes a good meal, some time, then a newspapers and hopefully a working toilet with a comfortable seat.

Oh wait, your asked “What is needed to get number 2?” not what is needed to go number 2, sorry that was my fault.

ETA: I guess my will is weaker then yours John.

Oh dear, you as well?

Since Doron seems fonder of riddles than reason, I might as well speculate. Here we go: Holism 101

The Universe is One. Even if it is diverse in some respects, it can be considered as a system, a whole, and it is reasonable to assume that it was a - careful now - 'singularity' in the beginning.

It follows logically that in order to get two things in the universe, the universe must have divided, separateness emerging from unity.

From that, it follows that all further divisions were also out-foldings of the One, and that all things are intimately connected in non-locality.

It is then only logical that there is something called the 'researcheable realm', which is whatever Doron's pictures might indicate, if any of us were clever enough to decipher them. It follows that 0 and 1 are to be shunned, and all things returned to fractions and relationships and fuzziness. Explanations are not helpful. Words are not to require reliable definitions for the facilitating of communication, since we all know what each other means in our hearts already (or would if only we stopped being so stupid).

Furthermore, truth is never to be found in science or other places where people say yes and no (and especially "I don't know; we'll have to work that out"), but is nevertheless encoded in the Naskapi Oracles and prophetic dreams.

The fluttering of a beetle's wing can cause generations to believe in 'the transpersonal', and therefore Jung was right to try to cure us of our loss of religion (http://skepdic.com/jung.html). Like Jung's patient, we must be 'liberated from our excessive rationalism' by the prophets of new science.

Sorry Doron, but I've given up trying to have a conversation with you. You clearly don't want to do so. You're protecting your narcisistic delusion from rational inspection by pretending everyone else is too stupid to understand the advanced concepts. Until you grow up a bit and learn to make sense you can't engage in philosophy with people honestly or fruitfully. All the best.

[doronshadmi]

Oh dear, you as well?

Since Doron seems fonder of riddles than reason, I might as well speculate. Here we go: Holism 101

The Universe is One. Even if it is diverse in some respects, it can be considered as a system, a whole, and it is reasonable to assume that it was a - careful now - 'singularity' in the beginning.

It follows logically that in order to get two things in the universe, the universe must have divided, separateness emerging from unity.

From that, it follows that all further divisions were also out-foldings of the One, and that all things are intimately connected in non-locality.

It is then only logical that there is something called the 'researcheable realm', which is whatever Doron's pictures might indicate, if any of us were clever enough to decipher them. It follows that 0 and 1 are to be shunned, and all things returned to fractions and relationships and fuzziness. Explanations are not helpful. Words are not to require reliable definitions for the facilitating of communication, since we all know what each other means in our hearts already (or would if only we stopped being so stupid).

Furthermore, truth is never to be found in science or other places where people say yes and no (and especially "I don't know; we'll have to work that out"), but is nevertheless encoded in the Naskapi Oracles and prophetic dreams.

The fluttering of a beetle's wing can cause generations to believe in 'the transpersonal', and therefore Jung was right to try to cure us of our loss of religion (http://skepdic.com/jung.html). Like Jung's patient, we must be 'liberated from our excessive rationalism' by the prophets of new science.

Sorry Doron, but I've given up trying to have a conversation with you. You clearly don't want to do so. You're protecting your narcisistic delusion from rational inspection by pretending everyone else is too stupid to understand the advanced concepts. Until you grow up a bit and learn to make sense you can't engage in philosophy with people honestly or fruitfully. All the best.

Too much talking.

Please provide your answer of what is needed to get 2?

[TMiguel]

Too much talking.

Please provide your answer of what is needed to get 2?

A group of work, operands, the basic properties of the operands (like neutral element), 0≠1, the notion of order, prove that 1>0, then do 1+1 and prove that 1+1>1 and therefore different from any other number and finally nick name it 2.
I have already proven you this one.

[John Freestone]

Too much talking.Insulting, but true. Embarrassing really. I'm sure some of the regulars were laughing at me even giving you the time of day. I thought you were probably just insane, trolling or something from the beginning, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, tried to engage with you on the issues you posted about, tried to understand, tried to ask for clarification (as so many others have), and finally, since you're not saying anything, tried to work out what might be on your mind for you. Yes, in the end, more fool me. Much too much talking to you. Still I can take that and learn not to bother with dorons like you in future, can't I? And I can say that I tried.

Please provide your answer of what is needed to get 2?Go forth and multiply.

[doronshadmi]

Go forth and multiply.


How by going forth multiplicity is possible?

[doronshadmi]

0≠1
By 0≠1 one already distinguishes between 0 and 1 by using |{0,1}|=2.

So I'll ask again: What is needed to get 2?

[TMiguel]

By 0≠1 one already distinguishes between 0 and 1 by using |{0,1}|=2.

So I'll ask again: What is needed to get 2?

Are you objecting whit the fact that 0≠1?

[doronshadmi]

Are you objecting whit the fact that 0≠1?
No.

I simply ask what is needed in order to get this fact?

[TMiguel]

No.
Ok so the proof still standing, that wasn't so hard was it?

I simply ask what is needed in order to get this fact?
Nothing, it's an axiom.

[ddt]

By 0≠1 one already distinguishes between 0 and 1 by using |{0,1}|=2.

Cardinality is not involved here. As TMiguel says, it's (a simple outcome of the) axioms, in case those of Peano.

a) 1 is, by definition, the successor of 0
b) one Peano axiom says that 0 is not the successor of any natural number

QED.

Oh, and 2 is by definition the successor of 1.

[doronshadmi]

Ok so the proof still standing, that wasn't so hard was it?


Nothing, it's an axiom.
What is needed in order to get this axiom (that 0≠1)?

[doronshadmi]

Cardinality is not involved here. As TMiguel says, it's (a simple outcome of the) axioms, in case those of Peano.

a) 1 is, by definition, the successor of 0
b) one Peano axiom says that 0 is not the successor of any natural number

QED.

Oh, and 2 is by definition the successor of 1.

What is needed to get that 1 is the successor of 0?

[TMiguel]

What is needed in order to get this axiom (that 0≠1)?

NOTHING!
If I want I can get another set of axioms and build my own field of logic similarly to mathematics (the question would it be if it is useful and coherent, but that is a different story).

What is needed to get that 1 is the successor of 0?
A definition, and prove 1>0

[ddt]

What is needed to get that 1 is the successor of 0?

Reading is hard, innit? I'll repeat what I wrote:
1 is, by definition, the successor of 0
Clear now?

[doronshadmi]

So the Usefulness of something gives the motivation to research and develop it.

In that case Usefulness depends on Researchability where Researchability depends on Distinguishability.

Some example:

By using Distinction as a first-order property Singularity is not researchable because nothing is comparable.

Comparability is at least A=A where A is compared with itself.

Self comparison is at least Relation\Element Interaction where in this case = is Relation and A is Element.

Only A (Element) or only = (Relation) is not researchable.


More particular example:

By using Distinction as a first-order property one can conclude that there is a bijection between R and N members, by using these pre-conditions:

1) <--> is a relation between exactly two distinct elements where the elements are different of each other (element X ≠ element Y, where ≠ is a relation between X element, Y element ).

2) Each X <--> Y is different of any other X <--> Y (notated as (X <--> Y) ≠ ('X <--> 'Y), where ≠ is a relation between (X <--> Y) element , ('X <--> 'Y) element).

3) The representation of Relation\Element Interaction does not matter as long as it obeys to Distinction as a first-order property.

By (1),(2),(3) there is a bijection between R and N members, as follows:


1 <--\ 0.100… (diagonal number)
\
\
-v
2 <--> 0.010… (no diagonal number)
3 <--> 0.110… (no diagonal number)
4 <--> 0.011… (no diagonal number)
…

Where 1 <--> diagonal number 1-1 correspondence is simply another distinct mapping that must not be added to the collection of distinct mappings, because it is already distinct.

Also by (1),(2),(3) no non-finite collection is complete ("…" does not represent a technical problem to construct t a complete collection, but it represents the fundamental incompleteness of any collection where in the case of N it is extrapolation incompleteness and in the case of Q and R it is a interpolation incompleteness).

This incompleteness is a direct conclusion of the inability of any collection to be Totally Relation (where no Element exists) because any collection is the result of Relation\Element Interaction, where this interaction is weaker than Relation-only (total connectivity) and stronger than Element-only (total isolation).

In that case there are infinitely many collections of infinitely degrees of different proportions where no collection is complete, as long as it is researchable.

In other words, universal quantifier is based on a fundamental wrong notion that does not understand Distinction and Researchability as must have terms of any useful framework.

The consiusness of the mathematician is a significant factor of Relation\Element Iinteraction.

[TMiguel]

So the Usefulness of something gives the motivation to research and develop it.
NO!! Before the standard formalization of math, being able to count is something that was useful, but lacked a good theoretical basis. On a latter formalization, they tried to theoretically prove “Why” does it work, and it turns out that some things where wrong and discarded, but there are others that could simply base the all math upon that they knew it had to be true but just they couldn’t prove it, those are axioms (simple acceptable statements that we know they must be true). Math is all build over those statements, YOU DON’T BUILD NEW ONES AND CALL IT MATH!
Math is certainly not something that tries to be useful (it just turns out it is) because its constructs are purely abstract, and in fact only extremely few tools of mathematics are useful (the rest you don’t even heard of).

In that case Usefulness depends on Researchability where Researchability depends on Distinguishability.
NO!! I can research about the history of the nose gnomes, it turns out it is not useful at all. And there are many engineering examples of things that are useful, but have no analytical solution. So Utility and Research is absolutely not the same thing.

Singularity is not…
And stop hijacking terminology you don’t know what it means.


and A is Element.
Of what?


By using Distinction as a first-order property one can conclude that there is a bijection between R and N members, by using these pre-conditions:
Do you even know what bijection means?

1) <--> is a relation between exactly two distinct elements where the elements are different of each other (element X ≠ element Y, where ≠ is a relation between X element, Y element ).

2) Each X <--> Y is different of any other X <--> Y (notated as (X <--> Y) ≠ ('X <--> 'Y), where ≠ is a relation between (X <--> Y) element , ('X <--> 'Y) element).

3) The representation of Relation\Element Interaction does not matter as long as it obeys to Distinction as a first-order property.

By (1),(2),(3) there is a bijection between R and N members, as follows:
Does the concept R is innumerable means anything to you?

Where 1 <--> diagonal number 1-1 correspondence is simply another distinct mapping that must not be added to the collection of distinct mappings, because it is already distinct.
Do you even know what mapping is?

Also by (1),(2),(3) no non-finite collection is complete ("…" does not represent a technical problem to construct t a complete collection, but it represents the fundamental incompleteness of any collection where in the case of N it is extrapolation incompleteness and in the case of Q and R it is a interpolation incompleteness).
Do you even know the definition of Q? Or what is an extrapolation?
If it is not a problem to build a successive enumeration of elements of R, then you won’t mind making one, Go ahead give an example.

(total connectivity)
Do you even know what connectivity means? Can you give an example of a simply connected group, or a connected by lines group, or group in star?

In that case there are infinitely many collections of infinitely degrees of different proportions where no collection is complete, as long as it is researchable.

In other words, universal quantifier is based on a fundamental wrong notion that does not understand Distinction and Researchability as must have terms of any useful framework. The ability to do research has NOTHING TO DO WHIT DEFINING MATH!

The consiusness of the mathematician is a significant factor of Relation\Element Iinteraction.
What I think does not influence in anyway on any result, example how much is 1+1? Did it matter if I wanted it to be 3 or 4 or 5?

You just hijacked this topic Congrats.

[Dancing David]

So the Usefulness of something gives the motivation to research and develop it.

No.


In that case Usefulness depends on Researchability where Researchability depends on Distinguishability.

Sort of but
Using Capitals Makes You Look Like a Kook.


Some example:

By using Distinction as a first-order property Singularity is not researchable because nothing is comparable.

No it is not researchable because you keep defining it that way.


Comparability is at least A=A where A is compared with itself.

More lack of definition and use of magical thinking.

undefined equals undefined


Self comparison is at least Relation\Element Interaction where in this case = is Relation and A is Element.

No self relation comes about by comparison of internal states of a perceiving body accompanied by memory.


Only A (Element) or only = (Relation) is not researchable.

Um, you are still not even trying, you have established the tautology:
1. define something as indistinguishable.
2. state that the indistinguishable is not researchable.

But please continue as you will.



More particular example:

By using Distinction as a first-order property one can conclude that there is a bijection between R and N members, by using these pre-conditions:

man , so you are a dualist as well, the universe fortunately doesn't care.


1) <--> is a relation between exactly two distinct elements where the elements are different of each other (element X ≠ element Y, where ≠ is a relation between X element, Y element ).

2) Each X <--> Y is different of any other X <--> Y (notated as (X <--> Y) ≠ ('X <--> 'Y), where ≠ is a relation between (X <--> Y) element , ('X <--> 'Y) element).

3) The representation of Relation\Element Interaction does not matter as long as it obeys to Distinction as a first-order property.

By (1),(2),(3) there is a bijection between R and N members, as follows:


1 <--\ 0.100… (diagonal number)
\
\
-v
2 <--> 0.010… (no diagonal number)
3 <--> 0.110… (no diagonal number)
4 <--> 0.011… (no diagonal number)
…

Where 1 <--> diagonal number 1-1 correspondence is simply another distinct mapping that must not be added to the collection of distinct mappings, because it is already distinct.

Also by (1),(2),(3) no non-finite collection is complete ("…" does not represent a technical problem to construct t a complete collection, but it represents the fundamental incompleteness of any collection where in the case of N it is extrapolation incompleteness and in the case of Q and R it is a interpolation incompleteness).

This incompleteness is a direct conclusion of the inability of any collection to be Totally Relation (where no Element exists) because any collection is the result of Relation\Element Interaction, where this interaction is weaker than Relation-only (total connectivity) and stronger than Element-only (total isolation).

In that case there are infinitely many collections of infinitely degrees of different proportions where no collection is complete, as long as it is researchable.

Oh that is cute, you are now saying that if distinction between elements is made then the set of observable stuff is infinite.

Um, fortunately the universe doesn'r care.


In other words, universal quantifier is based on a fundamental wrong notion that does not understand Distinction and Researchability as must have terms of any useful framework.

The consiusness of the mathematician is a significant factor of Relation\Element Iinteraction.

Nope, you are still just poking your finger in your eye and saying that you went to the moon.

[doronshadmi]

NO!!
Usefulness is not reduced the Practical. Usefulness in the general sense is anything that we define as useful, whether is abstract (not used for any particular purpose accept for its own coherency and beauty) or not (used to produce some practical product).


Before the standard formalization of math, being able to count is something that was useful, but lacked a good theoretical basis. On a latter formalization, they tried to theoretically prove “Why” does it work, and it turns out that some things where wrong and discarded, but there are others that could simply base the all math upon that they knew it had to be true but just they couldn’t prove it, those are axioms (simple acceptable statements that we know they must be true). Math is all build over those statements, YOU DON’T BUILD NEW ONES AND CALL IT MATH!
The mathematicians did not go deep enough because they did not research why and how axioms are possible in the first place.

My research clearly shows that no axiom can be found unless Relation\Element Interaction is possible, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.



What I think does not influence in anyway on any result, example how much is 1+1? Did it matter if I wanted it to be 3 or 4 or 5?
You or some machine that is used as your agent (which is actually an indirect influence of you) are the interactions between Relation and Element.

Without it no result can be found because Relation alone is total connectivity (and not researchable) and Element alone is total isolation (and not researchable).

For example:

1 is an element.

+ is a relation.

2 is the result of +\1 interaction, and you are a significant factor of this interaction (directly or indirectly).

EDIT: The interaction has no influence on the independency of Relation (total connectivity) with Element (total isolation) and vice versa, but any intermediate result, like some collection, is the result of the interaction between Relation (non-local atom) and Element (local atom).


You just hijacked this topic Congrats.
Do you mean acting like this person ? http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4174033&postcount=674 .


Does the concept R is innumerable means anything to you?
By using Distinction as a first-order property ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ) I clearly show that "R is innumerable" is based on a wrong notion.

Please show that my argument in ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ) is wrong.

EDIT:

If it is not a problem to build a successive enumeration of elements of R, then you won’t mind making one, Go ahead give an example.
You are right.

The right one is this:

("…" does not represent only a technical problem to construct a complete collection, but it also represents the fundamental incompleteness of any collection where in the case of N it is an extrapolation incompleteness and in the case of Q and R it is an interpolation incompleteness).

EDIT:

The ability to do research has NOTHING TO DO WHIT DEFINING MATH!

The word "Research" does not exclusively belong to some physical experimental research.

The term "mathematical researches" is also used by you in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4174033&postcount=674, isn't it?

[TMiguel]

Usefulness is not reduced the Practical. Usefulness in the general sense is anything that we define as useful, whether is abstract (not used for any particular purpose accept for its own coherency and beauty) or not (used to produce some practical product).
If useful it means, anything that can be actively used, mathematics has still allot of useless.


The mathematicians did not go deep enough because they did not research why and how axioms are possible in the first place.
The mathematics is the single most complex construct of knowledge ever build.
Why axioms are possible in the first place? Do you think? If you don’t I guess they are not possible.

My research clearly shows that no axiom can be found unless Relation\Element Interaction is possible, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.
Your “Research” only shows how can some one ramble about back and forward whit meaningless statements. Get this trough your head, THEY ARE COMPLETE GARBAGE!.
Axioms come BEFORE any sort of element or relation. THEY DEFINE ELEMENTS AND RELATIONS! If you didn’t had any axioms, how do you describe what a relation does? And you can’t build them on your wimp and call it math.
What you believe has no influence in math. You have a complete misconception on how math is done. Ex. Prove that 1+1=5. If you can do it without making a mistake, then I take back everything I said.

You or some machine that is used as your agent (which is actually an indirect influence of you) are the interactions between Relation and Element.
Absolutely not! Ex. computer. It is all about where are 5v and where aren’t. There is no concept of number, no concept of relation, just 5v or 0v.

Relation alone is total connectivity (and not researchable) and Element alone is total isolation (and not researchable).
Don’t hijack terms, you don’t know what connectivity means.

2 is the result of +\1 interaction, and you are a significant factor of this interaction (directly or indirectly).
No! Ex. make 1+1=5 and not 2.

Do you mean acting like this person ? http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4174033&postcount=674 .
Did that topic started whit something else and ended up being a talk about math? I’m curious.


By using Distinction as a first-order property ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ) I clearly show that "R is innumerable" is based on a wrong notion.
PROVE IT!

Please show that my argument in ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ) is wrong.
Apply your reason to the number “e” and “pi”, where do they fall? Woops, yeah, you got me there!

1) <--> is a relation between exactly two distinct elements where the elements are different of each other (element X ≠ element Y, where ≠ is a relation between X element, Y element ).

2) Each X <--> Y is different of any other X <--> Y (notated as (X <--> Y) ≠ ('X <--> 'Y), where ≠ is a relation between (X <--> Y) element , ('X <--> 'Y) element).

3) The representation of Relation\Element Interaction does not matter as long as it obeys to Distinction as a first-order property.
Ok fair enough. Now the proof that you are wrong: Because there are infinitely many ways of performing 2). But sense you stated by number 3) that any would do. Then if I start to associate:
N<-->R
1<-->1
2<-->2
i.e. n<-->n
Then the number “e”ЄR has no associated element in N, therefore it is not bijection. And because we where forced to go wrong, your statement is WRONG!

GAME OVER!


EDIT:

You are right.

The right one is this:

("…" does not represent only a technical problem to construct a complete collection, but it also represents the fundamental incompleteness of any collection where in the case of N it is an extrapolation incompleteness and in the case of Q and R it is an interpolation incompleteness).

Changing the goal post?
Anyways, this isn’t anything.
You hijack again another term.
You still haven’t answered, what do you know about what is:
1. Extrapolation.
2. The set Q
3. Singularity
4. Anything that has any real mathematical meaning.

EDIT:

The word "Research" does not exclusively belong to some physical experimental research.

The term "mathematical researches" is also used by you in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4174033&postcount=674, isn't it?
Yes! But I don’t claim to “research” for axioms, that would implicate a “research” outside of the purely abstract nature and in to the physical world, which you demand.
Or am I missing something here?
where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.
I guess not!

What you are doing is not math. PERIOD.

[doronshadmi]

Ok fair enough. Now the proof that you are wrong: Because there are infinitely many ways of performing 2). But sense you stated by number 3) that any would do. Then if I start to associate:
N<-->R
1<-->1
2<-->2
i.e. n<-->n
Then the number “e”ЄR has no associated element in N, therefore it is not bijection. And because we where forced to go wrong, your statement is WRONG!

GAME OVER!

For any distinct element of N we can find a distinct element of R, if Distinction is a first-order property of N and R (exactly as I show in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ).

The order of R members (or any other set of distinct members, that are mapped with N members) has no significance, where two collections of distinct elements are mapped with each other (infinitely many orders do not change the fact that there is always a map between any (distinct) N member and any (distinct) R member.

EDIT: From this point of view (where Distinction is a first-order property) Cantor's diagonal argument does not hold.

[TMiguel]

For any distinct element of N we can find a distinct element of R, if Distinction is a first-order property of N and R (exactly as I show in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183449&postcount=316 ).

The order of R members (or any other set of distinct members, that are mapped with N members) has no significance, where two collections of distinct elements are mapped with each other (infinitely many orders do not change the fact that there is always a map between any (distinct) N member and any (distinct) R member.

Which doesn't adds anything at all. You are still wrong.

[doronshadmi]

Which doesn't adds anything at all. You are still wrong.

Not if you use Distinction as a first-order property.


Axioms come BEFORE any sort of element or relation. THEY DEFINE ELEMENTS AND RELATIONS!
No.

Only a particular meaning of Relation and a particular meaning of Element is given by an axiom for a particular branch, and the meaning is given by the mathematician's cognition.

EDIT: The mathematician's cognition is the "trunk" of these "branches".

You do not get the pre-axiomatic state of MAF as written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

[TMiguel]

Only a particular meaning of Relation and a particular meaning of Element is given by an axiom for a particular branch, and the meaning is given by the mathematician's cognition.

You do not get the pre-axiomatic state of MAF as written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .
You repeating again everything I have already beaten to death. You are a crank, GET IT TROGH YOUR HEAD!

[doronshadmi]

You repeating again everything I have already beaten to death. You are a crank, GET IT TROGH YOUR HEAD!
You cannot "kill" reasoning that you don't understand.

The best that you can do is to say "You are a crank", "Nonsesne", Gibberish", etc ...

[TMiguel]

You cannot "kill" reasoning that you don't understand.
And you do? As far as I can tell, you couldn’t counter argument me, what do you think that means?

The best that you can do is to say "You are a crank", "Nonsesne", Gibberish", etc ...
Which is right.

Sense you are not adding nothing new, you are back to ignore list.

[doronshadmi]

TMiguel,

You still do not know what enables you to distinguish between 0 and 1 in order to write an expression like 0≠1 ( Your answer was "NOTHING!" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4179865&postcount=314 ).

At the moment that you will be able to know it, we will have something to talk about.

[John Freestone]

You do not get the pre-axiomatic state of MAF as written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .Consider this introductory question from your pdf "Universal Reasoning":
A foundationalist believes that there are beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore these beliefs can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs.
An anti-foundationalist believes that there are no beliefs that do not need any
justification by other beliefs. Therefore no belief can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs, and beliefs are relative to each other.
Is it possible to define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other?Isn't this impossible? Isn't the anti-foundationalist position paradoxical, and then how could it be made to agree with anything? Isn't 'There are no beliefs that do not need justification by other beliefs' a belief? Isn't 'There are no axioms' the anti-foundationalist's axiom. Isn't anti-foundationalism a statement denying itself?

Then this:In order to use logical reasoning as a common agreement between Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism, one has to find a mixed framework that enables beliefs to be reduced to their minimal accepted form....in which, by 'mixed' I assume you mean a generalising of the three logical processes listed (I think I followed that much). But surely there is no point, because the paradox of anti-foundationalism ('Nothing is certain') does not have a logical meeting with anything, does it? Can there be a logical reasoning with 'Nothing is certain'?

Isn't that the sad irony of this thread's descent?

[doronshadmi]

Consider this introductory question from your pdf "Universal Reasoning":
Isn't this impossible? Isn't the anti-foundationalist position paradoxical, and then how could it be made to agree with anything? Isn't 'There are no beliefs that do not need justification by other beliefs' a belief? Isn't 'There are no axioms' the anti-foundationalist's axiom. Isn't anti-foundationalism a statement denying itself?

Then this:...in which, by 'mixed' I assume you mean a generalising of the three logical processes listed (I think I followed that much). But surely there is no point, because the paradox of anti-foundationalism ('Nothing is certain') does not have a logical meeting with anything, does it? Can there be a logical reasoning with 'Nothing is certain'?

Isn't that the sad irony of this thread's descent?
There is a paradox if you use a foundationalist point of view of anti-foundationalism.

But an anti-foundationalist will tell you that his own viewpoint is also relative, so there is no paradox from the point of view of anti-foundationalist.

Hard-objectivist claims that nothing is relative.

Hard anti-objectivist claims that nothing is absolute.

Both claims are based on black\white reasoning.

In http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf I show that no hard approach is researchable, and we are (as conscious complex systems) a significant factor of any research.

[doronshadmi]

Prove that 1+1=5. If you can do it without making a mistake, then I take back everything I said.
MAF *__* is not MAF *__*__*__*__* .

You still do not understand that you are already using MAFs when you conclude that 1+1≠5 .


Ex. computer. It is all about where are 5v and where aren’t. There is no concept of number, no concept of relation, just 5v or 0v.
Exactly.

But since a computer is an agent of your consciousness, element 5v and element 0v are related to each other and meaning is given to any Relation\Element Interaction.

Furthermore, anything that does not obey to some meaning, understood as "white noise" where consciousness is the one who ables to understand (and basically it is closed under its own meanings).

EDIT:
The purpose of works like http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf is to avoid stagnation under particular meanings, by trying to generalize them, and it is done by first being aware of consciousness' owns limitations.

[calebprime]

Insulting, but true. Embarrassing really. I'm sure some of the regulars were laughing at me ...

Just so you know:

This lazy "regular" admires all clear writing and rational thinking.

[TMiguel]

MAF *__* is not MAF *__*__*__*__* .

I don't see how that should be a problem on proving that 1+1=5 if it depends on the mathematician.

[John Freestone]

There is a paradox if you use a foundationalist point of view of anti-foundationalism.

But an anti-foundationalist will tell you that his own viewpoint is also relative, so there is no paradox from the point of view of anti-foundationalist.

Hard-objectivist claims that nothing is relative.

Hard anti-objectivist claims that nothing is absolute.

Both claims are based on black\white reasoning.

In http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf I show that no hard approach is researchable, and we are (as conscious complex systems) a significant factor of any research.

I would love to be able to understand all the lovely patterns of numbers in UR.pdf so that I could verify or refute your claim.

I find it hard to imagine that no expert mathematician could not follow your maths and verify or refute your claim.

All I have seen so far is people who are struggling to understand your claim, or who seem to say that it's nonsense.

I am left with my verbal philosophy, my ordinary reason. To my mind, if anti-foundationalist (a-fou from now on) would say that his POV is relative, as you say above, that does not remove the paradox, either in isolation (perhaps) and (more certainly) when trying to make the a-fou 'agree logically' with the fou.

In isolation, the statement "A-fou is a philosophy in which all beliefs are relative" is not a relative belief, hence it is still self-contradictory. Either a-fou is philosophically fundamental relativity (I'm making my own terms up now too!...which is presumably something like unconsciousness or void or your own definition of a singularity, something about which nothing can be said at all ever) or it has some form and usefulness - not both. In order for it to do anything, mean anything, relate to other statements or be used by any thinker, it has to be self-consistent, not its own refutation.

This statement is relatively true

is as useless except for philosophy students to go insane thinking about, as

This statement is false

and

This philosophy is that all ideas are relative

is, very unfortunately, unusable, it seems to me.

The problem is not to try to help fou and a-fou to talk the same language, the problem is that a-fou can't talk. To say anything, it needs black-and-white-ness.

The human race has spent millennia on it. The paradox does not get solved, it just moves. Your work seems to me like someone chasing the paradox, trying to get it to fall off the edge of the page, and it seems to be driven by your wish to have spirit, divinity, quantum-mechanical-cosmic-consciousness and the 'meaningful coincidences' of fluttering scarobs (if some of your background information is anything to go by). It seems an endless quest to prove God mathematically.

Yet all the authorities on the matter so far agree that you can only sit in silence and contemplate the One, not form meaningful statements about It. You seem to be trying to name the Tao. (See, again, paradox: "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao" - so whatever you say it is, it's moved somewhere else.) Hence the long tradition of vows of silence in religion.

Fine if you want to keep trying, and I hope you contribute something to maths, if not perform THE mathematical miricle of all time. I think I've got to a point where I have to choose to stay with black-and-whiteness, only remembering that reality may actually be mysterious (therefore, I give up believing that I can make meaningful statements about the fundamental nature of reality). Like a mathematician, I play with the things I can define, and wonder at the background indefinable-ness, the 'Void'. It's fun to contemplate, but trying to fit it into a formula, I think, causes people to go mad eventually. It's amazing how many of the great mathematicians spent periods of time in mental institutions. They seem to recover in as much as they return to black-and-whiteness. Monks take the other route into Nothingness.

As kindly as I can, I suggest you sharpen your pencil or shave your head. One or the other. I have to retain some humility, however, because, as I have said, I'm not an expert mathematician. There's something called fuzzy logic, and I have no idea what it is. I'm fairly sure it isn't a bridge between science and religion, though, or it would have been on the news.

I should like to apologise for "Go forth and multiply". It was an insult, not a suggested solution to 'how do you get 2?'. "2" doesn't make any sense in anything other than foundationalism. Nothing at all makes sense in anti-foundationalism. It is the complete abandonment of reason.

[John Freestone]

Just so you know:

This lazy "regular" admires all clear writing and rational thinking.Noted, and thanks, calebprime.

[Dancing David]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3952

[doronshadmi]

I don't see how that should be a problem on proving that 1+1=5 if it depends on the mathematician.

Do you get this part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4183781&postcount=319 ?

You or some machine that is used as your agent (which is actually an indirect influence of you) are the interactions between Relation and Element.

Without it no result can be found because Relation alone is total connectivity (and not researchable) and Element alone is total isolation (and not researchable).

For example:

1 is an element.

+ is a relation.

2 is the result of +\1 interaction, and you are a significant factor of this interaction (directly or indirectly).

EDIT: The interaction has no influence on the independency of Relation (total connectivity) with Element (total isolation) and vice versa, but any intermediate result, like some collection, is the result of the interaction between Relation (non-local atom) and Element (local atom).

[doronshadmi]

"A-fou is a philosophy in which all beliefs are relative"
An anti-foundationalist does not use the term "all" during his research. Instead he uses the term "any", which does not force any conclusion on the entire system (as a foundationalist does).


The problem is not to try to help fou and a-fou to talk the same language, the problem is that a-fou can't talk. To say anything, it needs black-and-white-ness.
The problem is that black\white reasoning is not the general case of any reasoning (as can be found by the majority of the current community of mathematicians around the globe) but it is nothing but some particular case of Universal Reasoning, which is not only a black\white reasoning.

By using not only a black\white reasoning, we get a researchable framework, which is less trivial and more interesting than black\white reasoning.


"2" doesn't make any sense in anything other than foundationalism.
"2" doesn't make any sense also if only object is considered, because we need a relation (notated as "__" between object , object (notate as "*"), where each * is totally isolated without __ (and in this case *__* (notated as "2") cannot be found).

So *__* cannot be but the result of Anti-Foundationalism(Relation)\Foundationalism(Element or Object) Interaction.


Yet all the authorities on the matter so far agree that you can only sit in silence and contemplate the One
There is no such a thing as authorities on fundamental new ideas (including me, in this case). There can be experts that are using and developing already agreed ideas as long as they are interesting and\or useful.

EDIT:

You seem to be trying to name the Tao. (See, again, paradox: "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao" - so whatever you say it is, it's moved somewhere else.) Hence the long tradition of vows of silence in religion.

Again,
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150662&postcount=226

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.jpg

As can be seen, Relation (non-locality) and Element (locality) exist both as distinct and non-distinct (singularity) state, where Consciousness is the a significant factor of the interaction between the distinct and the non-distinct.

In this diagram Tao = Singularity, whish is not researchable and can be "manifested" only by silence.

[doronshadmi]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3952

This is an old one and not correct.

your objection is analogous to saying that we can't slice an orange because it destroys the ball-shape of the orange.
You can slice an orange but between any pair of cuts (locals) there is Continuum (Non-locality), which is logically not a collection of cuts (locals) as written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf .

[TMiguel]

This is an old one and not correct.
Prove it!

You claim, you prove!
You don't really get it do you?

You pound on the same mistake over and over again because you don’t like the right answer.
I’m wasting my time on a lost case, you will remain ignorant despite of whatever I show you.
If you want to move forward, all you have to do is to stop wasting your time here and my time (debunking your cranks), and take a superior course on Mathematical Analysis. Seriously take a superior course on Mathematical Analysis, if after that you still believe that your work isn’t more then just a crank, then I can certainly tell that you are not being honest whit yourself.

[The Man]

This is an old one and not correct.

You can slice an orange but between any pair of cuts (locals) there is Continuum (Non-locality), which is logically not a collection of cuts (locals) as written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf .

How is it that the pair of cuts are "locals" but the sections of the orange they define are somehow a "continuum (Non-locality)"?

The sections of orange are inherently local while each of the cuts, having one face of the cut on one section of orange and the other face of the cut on the other section of orange, are inherently more non-local then the sections of orange.

ETA: I you are considering two sections produced by a single cut, then it is not a pair of cuts but just two sections and “faces” produced by a single cut. Each of those faces is local to one of the sections of orange and they can even define a local volume between the sections of orange that does not include the sections of orange

[John Freestone]

Interesting answers, Doron.
An anti-foundationalist does not use the term "all" during his research. Instead he uses the term "any", which does not force any conclusion on the entire system (as a foundationalist does).Then the anti-foundationalist does not come to conclusions, presumably. Either than, or perhaps you will relativise this again and say that an a-fou might come to some conclusions, or does or might come to conclusions of a tentative nature, yes? How will you know when he has agreed with the foundationalist on the new logic that allows them to talk to each other?

Fou: Agreed?
A-fou: Maybe...
Fou: So is Shadmi's new math the language we can use to talk to each other?
A-fou: Oh, yes, probably.

The problem is that black\white reasoning is not the general case of any reasoning (as can be found by the majority of the current community of mathematicians around the globe) but it is nothing but some particular case of Universal Reasoning, which is not only a black\white reasoning.That is an unreasonable view. B&W-reasoning is the only reasoning there is, AFAIK, and universal reasoning is something you'd like to have discovered, as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. If I'm right, then I'm right. It cannot be partially-right that there is a universal reasoning of which b&w reasoning is a special case. This is exactly where you go wrong all the time. The problem with B&W reasoning is not that it is a special case, but that it is all we have got, and when you try to relativise true-false, you immediately fail to make sense. It doesn't make much sense in mathematics, where the strangest things seem possible, to have "MAYBE" as the bottom line. And yet you propose that your ideas will help to bridge the gap between mathematics and physics, solving Hilbert's sixth!

By using not only a black\white reasoning, we get a researchable framework, which is less trivial and more interesting than black\white reasoning.No. By using BWR we get a 'researchable framework', without which all knowledge that can be written, spoken or otherwise transmitted between human beings (ignoring supernatural transmission, of course) melts away into your paradoxical postmodern pontification (PPP) of Organic Numbers. Am I half right?

"2" doesn't make any sense also if only object is considered, because we need a relation (notated as "__" between object , object (notate as "*"), where each * is totally isolated without __ (and in this case *__* (notated as "2") cannot be found).

So *__* cannot be but the result of Anti-Foundationalism(Relation)\Foundationalism(Element or Object) Interaction.This seems backwards. From noticing objects and counting them, we abstract number theory as a set of ideas. The numbers aren't real. No-one has every held 2 in their hands, you know? But you go further, and abstract this nonsense of Relationship and Element, which you decide must be primary concepts in your formulation. You then mix up these with a-fou and fou, as if there were a natural, obvious isomorphism. I can see what you're getting at: here is one thing, there is another, then we can only have the idea that there are two of them by relating them. It doesn't mean you have discovered a new pair of complementary truths, Relationship and Element, that - I think you said - come before the axioms of the number theory, it seems to me. You derived these properties, these ideas; they are in fact just rather obvious observations from number theory. It would be as arbitrary if you had a thing about triads and described the whole of number theory in terms of three and relationships to threeness. Your little diagrams of how we can think of the number 4 - four units, 1+3, 2+2... - do you really think no-one has noticed this before?

There is no such a thing as authorities on fundamental new ideas (including me, in this case). There can be experts that are using and developing already agreed ideas as long as they are interesting and\or useful.Yes, but apparently there aren't many mathematicians who find your ideas interesting or useful. I find you interesting, but for reasons that are not really mathematical.

In this diagram Tao = Singularity, whish is not researchable and can be "manifested" only by silence.Ah yes, I see. That is an interesting distinction - Tao is much better mapped to the universal everythingness that lies at the bottom of reality, and reality is best described as those mountain thingies, where the peaks are Localities and the valleys are Non-Locality. You should study that one that's somebody's avatar here. It is a sketch of a person's head, with REALITY written on the outside and IMAGINATION on the inside. Maybe you'll discover a synthesis between them, a bit like Lisa Simpson's hairdo.

[doronshadmi]

How is it that the pair of cuts are "locals" but the sections of the orange they define are somehow a "continuum (Non-locality)"?

The sections of orange are inherently local while each of the cuts, having one face of the cut on one section of orange and the other face of the cut on the other section of orange, are inherently more non-local then the sections of orange.

ETA: I you are considering two sections produced by a single cut, then it is not a pair of cuts but just two sections and “faces” produced by a single cut. Each of those faces is local to one of the sections of orange and they can even define a local volume between the sections of orange that does not include the sections of orange

Let me help you.

Non-Locality and Locality go beyond (are generalization of) Nothing and Something.

L = Locality
NL= Non-Locality

In this case we get this:

L NL L NL L NL L NL L NL L
| | | | | |
________ __________ ______________ … etc.


which is the same as:

L NL L NL L NL L NL L NL L
| | | | | |
__________________________________________________ __________________ … etc.


and the same as:

L NL L NL L NL L NL L NL L
| | | | | |
… etc.


And again, it is not limited to any particular brach of Mathematics.

[The Man]

Let me help you.

As you seem unable to help yourself, I find the prospect of your offer not very promising.



Non-Locality and Locality go beyond (are generalization of) Nothing and Something.

In this case we get this:

L = Locality
NL= Non-Locality

L NL L NL L NL L NL L NL L
________ ________ ____________ … etc.


So your answer seems to be that since you can create some representation having “NL” in between two “L”s for your segments, it demonstrates that any segment is a “Continuum (Non-locality)”. Simply restating your assertion in a different and less supportive fashion does not help you. As you can see you have defined very local segments not only just between the “L”s but only between certain pairs of “L” so that your “NL”s within the segments are even more localized then your “NL”s in general, which of course also localizes your “NL”s without segments to that designation of between segments.

Well I will thank you because you did indeed help me by demonstrating the locality of the segments and non-segments, even if you did just stick an “NL” on them in a vain effort to help yourself.

[doronshadmi]

As you seem unable to help yourself, I find the prospect of your offer not very promising.




So your answer seems to be that since you can create some representation having “NL” in between two “L”s for your segments, it demonstrates that any segment is a “Continuum (Non-locality)”. Simply restating your assertion in a different and less supportive fashion does not help you. As you can see you have defined very local segments not only just between the “L”s but only between certain pairs of “L” so that your “NL”s within the segments are even more localized then your “NL”s in general, which of course also localizes your “NL”s without segments to that designation of between segments.

Well I will thank you because you did indeed help me by demonstrating the locality of the segments and non-segments, even if you did just stick an “NL” on them in a vain effort to help yourself.
Let me help you again.

No local can be simultaneously in two different states.

In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local, otherwise it is non-local.

A point, does not have the property being in more than a one state (please look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4186727&postcount=342 ).

It is clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf (pages 7-8) .

[doronshadmi]

- do you really think no-one has noticed this before?
*_*, *_*_*, etc ... are not numbers but MAFs.

As for numbers, I did not see some mathematical system that uses them as a model of Interaction between Relation and Element, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf to learn more about this subject.

[The Man]

Let me help you again.

Well if it is anything like your help before, then I will thank you beforehand this time.




No local can be simultaneously in two different states.

In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local, otherwise it is non-local.

What segment is not totally between some point (x) and some other point (not the first point x), that is the definition of a segment? Then by your own assertions all segments would be “local”.

So segments can be local or non-local even both at the same time but are only local by definition and your own assertions.

If you are asserting that some segment we might refer to as “local” while other segments would then be non-local, then you are just asserting the dependence of the ascriptions local and non-local on what one chooses to consider “local” at that time.


A point, does not have the property being in more than a one state (please look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4186727&postcount=342 ). .

By your own assertions neither does a segment.


No local can be simultaneously in two different states.


In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local…


It is clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf (pages 7-8) .



Just because you write something does not make it true and most likely not “clearly written” either. You really have to start helping yourself.

[The Man]

*_*, *_*_*, etc ... are not numbers but MAFs.

As for numbers, I did not see some mathematical system that uses them as a model of Interaction between Relation and Element, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf to learn more about this subject.

That system you "did not see" is called mathematics, exemplified by your lack of cognition of mathematics being a significant factor in your inability to interact with its 'Relations' and 'Elements'.

[doronshadmi]

What segment is not totally between some point (x) and some other point (not the first point x), that is the definition of a segment? Then by your own assertions all segments would be “local”.

x = .
y = .

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . . )

x = y (example: . )

x > y (example: . . )


x = .
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )

x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )

x > y (example: __ . )


x = __
y = .

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ . )

x > y (example: . __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: _. )

x < > y (example: _._ )

x = > y (example: ._ )


x = __
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ __ )

x = y (example: __ )

x > y (example: __ __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ____ )


x = __
y = ____

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ______ )

x > < y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ______ )


x = ____
y = __

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ______ )

x < > y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ______ )

x,y relations are non-commutative.

As can be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation.

A line is local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a line), where a point is local only w.r.t a point or a line.

[doronshadmi]

I have a miskate in the last one, it has to be:

x = > y (example: ______ )


Also:

__ /. = __

. / __ = .

__ / __ = __

. / . = .

_____ / __ = ___

__ / _____ = _

[doronshadmi]

As can be seen Organic Mathematics has both relative and objective accepts, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this framework.

[The Man]

<Preceding pointless self-serving and apparently contradictory graphics removed>

x,y relations are non-commutative.

As can be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation.

A line is local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a line), where a point is local only w.r.t a point or a line.

As can be seen you simply create your own personal definition of local and non-local then draw graphics based on those self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions and claim “As can be seen”.


I have a miskate in the last one, it has to be:

<Subsequent pointless, self-serving and apparently contradictory graphics removed>



Your mistake is considering graphics designed to your self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local as anything other then indicative of your own self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local.


As can be seen Organic Mathematics has both relative and objective accepts, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this framework.

I see absolutely nothing “objective” in your graphics or the self serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local they would represent. The only “cognition” is yours, which is clearly not a mathematician’s or you could have produced mathematical examples of local and non-local.

Let me help you.

If we choose to consider (in relation to an x y origin) any point where x2 + y2 <= R2 as our area of local interest, then non-local would be any point where x2 + y2 > R2. The radius R then becomes our defining aspect of local and non-local in that consideration. This is just one relevant cognition a mathematician might profess when considering local and non-local.

As can be seen mathematics actually has both relative (where one choose to place the x y origin or consider as the local area) and objective (x2 + y2 = R2 in this consideration) aspects that most people (let alone mathematicians) are cognitive of. Perhaps someday you will choose to be cognitive of them as well.

[John Freestone]

:popcorn1

[doronshadmi]

As can be seen you simply create your own personal definition of local and non-local then draw graphics based on those self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions and claim “As can be seen”.




Your mistake is considering graphics designed to your self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local as anything other then indicative of your own self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local.



I see absolutely nothing “objective” in your graphics or the self serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local they would represent. The only “cognition” is yours, which is clearly not a mathematician’s or you could have produced mathematical examples of local and non-local.

Let me help you.

If we choose to consider (in relation to an x y origin) any point where x2 + y2 <= R2 as our area of local interest, then non-local would be any point where x2 + y2 > R2. The radius R then becomes our defining aspect of local and non-local in that consideration. This is just one relevant cognition a mathematician might profess when considering local and non-local.

As can be seen mathematics actually has both relative (where one choose to place the x y origin or consider as the local area) and objective (x2 + y2 = R2 in this consideration) aspects that most people (let alone mathematicians) are cognitive of. Perhaps someday you will choose to be cognitive of them as well.

(x2 + y2 = R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 < R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 > R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 < = R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 > = R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 > < R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 < > R2 ( R2 is non-local)

Furthermore, if Relation\Element Interaction are considered as first-order properties, then + , < , = , > are non-local (Relation) and x2, y2, R2 are locals (Element).

In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).

Again: only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (which is a contradiction from a local-only ponit of view).

[TMiguel]

R is supposed to be a generic constant.Insult removed.
Do not use personal insults.

Do not remove edits, additions or warnings made by a Mod.

[doronshadmi]

A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.

w.r.t is actually a relation, which is non-local by nature, otherwise no elements are comparable (including self comparison) and no elements are researchable.

Relations > or < are both small_AND_big (non-local) otherwise they cannot used in order to compare between different elements.

Relation = is used to compare between an element with itself.

[doronshadmi]

R is supposed to be a generic constant Insult removed.
Do not use personal insults.

R can be local or non-local constant w.r.t to some element (different or not).

In general, locality and non-locality are researchable only by Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Non-locality only is total connectivity and not researchable.

Locality only is total isolation and not researchable.

Another example:

By standard math y of the expression x <= y <= z cannot be but local (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) ( example: . ] , [.] , [ . )

By the new approach y of the expression x <= y <= z can be also non-local (y=x and y>x and y<z and y=z) ( example: [ ] )

[TMiguel]

(x2 + y2 > < R2 ( R2 is non-local)

Although you have not objectively defined what “> <” means, by the post what you are trying to imply whit
x > < y (example: ____ )
(which is not only wrong but also a very bad representation) x is an interval and y is a disconnected group and x><y means that there is at least 1 “a” element of y for which y(a)<x(d) and 1 element “b” which y(b)>x(d) being x(d) any element of x.

Now sense R is a generic constant, go figure out what this means:

(x2 + y2 > < R2 ( R2 is non-local)

If that doesn’t sum it up, nothing else will.


Relations > or < are both small_AND_big (non-local) otherwise they cannot used in order to compare between different elements.

Relation = is used to compare between an element with itself.
You don’t know what is > or < either,
a<b means that (a-b)ЄR-
b>a means a<b.
Now why do you think there is any difference between “Ñ(a>b)” (by your definition local) and “(a<=b)” (by your definition non-local) when comparable order is applicable?

And what does that have anything to do whit:
In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).?

[TMiguel]

By standard math y of the expression x <= y <= z cannot be but local (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) ( example: . ] , [.] , [ . )
Wrong!
Take for instance y=3,x=3,z=3 oh look it’s a even amount of true statements in (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) so this is false.


By the new approach y of the expression x <= y <= z can be also non-local (y=x and y>x and y<z and y=z) ( example: [ ] )
Wrong!
y=x and y>x can not be simultaneously true by the definition of “>” and inverse element.
x-x=0, if y=x then y>x => x>x => x-xЄR- and there fore x≠x. And by reduction to absurd, this statement is always false.

[The Man]

(x2 + y2 = R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 < R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 > R2 ( R2 is local)

(x2 + y2 < = R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 > = R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 > < R2 ( R2 is non-local)

(x2 + y2 < > R2 ( R2 is non-local)

Furthermore, if Relation\Element Interaction are considered as first-order properties, then + , < , = , > are non-local (Relation) and x2, y2, R2 are locals (Element).

In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).

Again: only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (which is a contradiction from a local-only ponit of view).

A contradiction is a contradiction, the fact that you do not consider contradictions to be invalid is just an aspect of your particular Dialetheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism). The fact is that "the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians" considers both local and non-local points of view, just not your particular Dialetheistic point of view of the definitions of local and non-local.

For example..


A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.



A line being local with respect to a point yet that point not being local with respect to that line is a contradiction, the consideration in your mind that such a contraction does not render your definitions of local and not local as invalid (or at least inconsistent) does not make those assertion any less contradictory, it simply means that you just don’t care that they are contradictory.

[doronshadmi]

Wrong!
Not if y is researched w.r.t x<z. (x=y=z is not the case that I researched).


Wrong!
y=x and y>x can not be simultaneously true
Unless y is non-local.

[doronshadmi]

...yet that point not being local ...
EDIT:

A point can be only local, please read my posts (all of it http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4192782&postcount=355 ) before you reply.

again:

A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.

Only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (Relartion is non-local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction. Element is local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction).



In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 x,y relations are non-commutative.

[John Freestone]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:

How old are you?

What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

Do you study anything currently at school, university, etc.?

Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

What became of this new approach for the definition of a number (http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html), which has one link from it (entitled Discussion Formum) that goes nowhere?

Why, in the Physics Forum (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3952), did you suggest that Hurkyl Please read carefully the overview of my new theory of numbers:

[same page ref as above]

I wil be glade to get your remarks and insights.?

Why 'carefully'? How difficult do you imagine it is to read what is there, which, removing headings, pictures, greetings and overtures, says:

In any agreement we must be aware of the fact that no model of x is x itself.
This awareness to the difference between x-model and x-itself is the first condition for any stable agreement, because it gives it the ability to be changed.?

Is that website valid?

Do you think the above 'new definition' is meaningful?

Ta muchly
John

[doronshadmi]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:

How old are you?

What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

Do you study anything currently at school, university, etc.?

Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

What became of this new approach for the definition of a number (http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html), which has one link from it (entitled Discussion Formum) that goes nowhere?

Why, in the Physics Forum (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3952), did you suggest that Hurkyl ?

Why 'carefully'? How difficult do you imagine it is to read what is there, which, removing headings, pictures, greetings and overtures, says:

?

Is that website valid?

Do you think the above 'new definition' is meaningful?

Ta muchly
John
Dear John,

Let us not hijack this thread by personal conversation.

There is a private message for this.

As long as mathematician's are unaware of themselves as a significant factor of their results (and I am not talking about the "totally relative" or "totally absulote" naïve approach, but about the non-trivial interaction between the rational and the objective, where Consciousness is a significant factor) they cannot understand Organic Mathematics and how it can be developed to a tool for Consciousness' development.

[John Freestone]

A contradiction is a contradiction, the fact that you do not consider contradictions to be invalid is just an aspect of your particular Dialetheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism). The fact is that "the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians" considers both local and non-local points of view, just not your particular Dialetheistic point of view of the definitions of local and non-local.Thanks for that link, The Man. We're thinking along similar lines, clearly.

There's this bundling of relational operators into "Relation" (and apparently the eqation of this with Non-locality), and the identification of the other parts, constants and variables and what-not, as "Elements" (cf. Locals). This seems somewhat arbitrary, since I could identify any element in an equation as the result of another equation, which itself contains operators and elements. Thus it seems that there is a self-referential definition going on, as though Einstein had suggested E=mc2+E. Obviously that's physics, not math, but I can't see how it could be acceptable in math either. It just leads to absurdity, I suppose, like (P and ~P).

I can see that perhaps to Doron this seems a power of his system - if 3 is 'researchable' and it is also a result of 2+1, then it is researchable, because it is a combination of elements and relationship. It's just that I'm not sure if a definition is powerful if I can't find anything that isn't in that set. The power of a definition would seem to be that it discriminates, places set boundaries somewhere. Ah, no, I'm wrong, aren't I? Whatever further equation I find for a number, it involves some operator or other, and that is still unlike a number. Hence relationship seems to keep re-entering any result, which at first I may consider an element, but perhaps elements aren't any part of relations. However, now a new paradoxical problem opens up, which is that Doron's 'Relation' and 'Element' are not distinct species of thing or process. One is intrinsic to the other: relationship is intrinsic to element. The exception, in natural numbers, would be if there were a number that could not be expressed in any equation, thus avoiding introducing relational operators. Since I don't know of any, that seems the weakness - or at least one weakness. The 'researchable realm' of natural numbers ends up just being the natural numbers, and Doron has spent a lot of time in complicated descriptions of nothing at all.

Another idea is this intended integration into mathematics of the mathematician's "cognition". The earlier Relationship\Element (is there a significance of the backslash?) weakness suggests to me someone idly inventing mathematical schemes to approximate the metaphysical hopes in his head - like starting with Mind\Matter. The introduction of the mathematician's mind, in the absense of a clear rationale (apparently) for the R\E maths adds to that impression. Since there has not yet been any clear definition of Element or Relation (or did I miss those)...nor any definition of what the mathematician's "cognition" is supposed to mean, or how it is part of the maths, I feel as though I'm just being set up to suppose that there is something deeeeeeeeeply significant here.

This with the background of explanatory links to Father - I mean, Doctor - Peat, with his courses at the Pari Centre (2009 courses "Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind", "Art, Science and the Sacred" and "New Science/ New Paradigms") complete the picture that this is meant to be sacred math. That'll be why we're told:The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).Roughly translated, this seems to be saying that Doron is cleverer than any critic of his maths, being able to transcend the local POV in which the 'current community' is stuck. It seems to be saying either that in order to get to this erudite spritual maths of relation and element, one needs to be comfortable with 'contrary definitions' (i.e. Doronic Math entails contradicion somehow in it), or that a revelation is possible for one of the lowly mathematicians in which they achieve a new perspective, wherein the contradiction is seen as illusory. (Maybe diagrams of optical illusions will follow, like the old hag-young woman!)


Dear John,

Let us not hijack this thread by personal conversation.
:D So, er, is consciousness a basic rule of physics?

There is a private message for this.Ok. I'll ask you privately.

[doronshadmi]

I could identify any element in an equation as the result of another equation
Any equation (if it is researchable) is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, and there is no interaction without the mathematician's cognition.

(P and ~P).

P is an element.

and or ~ are relarions.

P and ~P is Relation\Eelement Interaction.

relationship is intrinsic to element
If it is researchable. Again, I am talking about NOT LESS than Relation\Eelement Interaction.

and Doron has spent a lot of time in complicated descriptions of nothing at all.
And I spent my time to show that the standard natural number is the particular case of asymmetry of Relation\Element Interaction.

the 'current community' is stuck.
As long as Non-locality and Distinction are not first-order proprties.

[TMiguel]

Not if y is researched w.r.t x<z. (x=y=z is not the case that I researched).


Unless y is non-local.

This means “unless it is something different then what you have stated, a therefore your point on this is still wrong anyways”.
You don’t really care about this do you? You just wing it whit the first non-sense that comes to your mind, just to waste our time.

[The Man]

EDIT:

A point can be only local, please read my posts (all of it http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4192782&postcount=355 ) before you reply.

again:

A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.

Only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (Relartion is non-local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction. Element is local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction).



In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 x,y relations are non-commutative.

Oops that was my fault; I must have missed the “but”. However, that does not make those assertions any less contradictory (or just inconsistent) since they assert that some line can be non-local with respect to some given point yet that same point is only local with respect to that same line. As “with respect to” is just the relation between the point and the line then that relation is either local for both, non-local for both or both for both, if you want to assert that the line can be local, non-local or both with respect to some given point then that same point must also be local, non-local or both (whichever you choose to assert for the line) with respect to that same line, otherwise you are just inconsistent and self contradictory.

Also


A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

That would make a point being non-local with respect to a line or a point a contradiction but as you assert “only by a local point of view”. Thus (by your assertions) in a non-local point of view a point can be non-local with respect to a line or a point. Stop limiting your point of view to only your own local perspective before you assert others as having only a limited or local point of view.

[Dancing David]

This means “unless it is something different then what you have stated, a therefore your point on this is still wrong anyways”.
You don’t really care about this do you? You just wing it whit the first non-sense that comes to your mind, just to waste our time.


This is what most of these strange psuedotroll gambits resolve to. I say psuedotroll because DS knows what they think they are trying to say.

[doronshadmi]

The Man, TMiguel,


Your local point of view on everything simply prevents any chance to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188308&postcount=349 .

I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.

[jsfisher]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:
...
What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

He has collaborated with a kindergarten teacher, Moshe Klein.

...
Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

We encounter a problem here. Two problems, actually. First, mathematicians older than 5 years is too regimented in their thinking to fathom doron's local\non-local complementation. Doron himself has confirmed this many times. So there's that problem.

Second, all the major mathematicians are just plain wrong about some of the very basics. Cantor, for example, completely blew that whole diagonal proof thing. Don't even get me started on Euclid.

[The Man]

The Man, TMiguel,


Your local point of view on everything simply prevents any chance to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188308&postcount=349 .

I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.


Some of us have heard that from you before, but then, as always, you proceeded to contradict yourself. If you are not willing to waste your time addressing your assertions on this thread perhaps you might be interested in actually addressing the OP of this thread, is consciousness a basic rule of physics. Oh wait, that would again result in you wasting your time supporting your own (or perhaps someone else’s) assertions on that question to others on this thread and if you are not willing to waste your time supporting your assertions to those that do not agree with you, well then, at least I thank you for that.

[doronshadmi]

Some of us have heard that from you before, but then, as always, you proceeded to contradict yourself. If you are not willing to waste your time addressing your assertions on this thread perhaps you might be interested in actually addressing the OP of this thread, is consciousness a basic rule of physics. Oh wait, that would again result in you wasting your time supporting your own (or perhaps someone else’s) assertions on that question to others on this thread and if you are not willing to waste your time supporting your assertions to those that do not agree with you, well then, at least I thank you for that.
Dear The Man,

In order to disagree with my ideas, you first have to show that you understand them (which is something that you did not show yet).

The reason that you don't understand them is very simple, you ignore Non-locality and Distinction as first-order properties of the mathematical science and stick only to the asymmetric result of Relation\Element Interaction as if it’s the only possible form.

From this particular point of view you are secured from any ability to get more general notions of the foundations of the mathematical science.

There is no researchable framework (Mathematics or not) unless there is REI (Relation\Element Interaction) and the researcher (mathematician or not) is a significant factor of the interaction.

If you disagree with me, you have to show some researchable framework that is not REI and nothing is used as a researcher that is a significant factor of the interaction between Relation and Element.

I am still waiting to your counter example (be careful, any mechanical device is nothing but some agent of the researcher).

[doronshadmi]

Dear John,

It is good that you are suspicious, because any new ideas cannot be accepted unless they survive the criticism that is based on the old once. In other words, I am an Evolutionist and Mutation (changing fundamental well agreed aspects, whether they are physical systems or established ideas) is one of its fundamental terms.

Actually what I suggest is very simple.

I claim that also Standard Mathematics is based on Relation\Element Interaction and this interaction cannot be avoided, otherwise we have no researchable framework.

Also I claim that the researcher is a significant factor of any research (where any research is at least REI).

I have learned the fundamental notions that stand at the basis of the mathematical science by myself (which in this case it can be a privilege) and if you also lucky you may have the chance to see well established things form a new point of view.

By using Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science, I realized that most (if not all) fundamental mathematical notions (that are used as the basis of axioms) are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as the first-order property of the entire mathematical science.

One of the new notions (if Distinction is used as a first-order property) is Non-locality.

If non-locality is accepted, then some of the agreed fundamental notions of the mathematical community are changed by a paradigm-shift, which is devastating to anyone that accepts the agreed terms, because now there is another point of view of the same things, which fundamentally changes his understanding of the very notions of mathematical science.

It is natural and good response that people that share the agreed notions will do their best in order to avoid any change of these agreed fundamental notions, and as an Evolutionist I am aware of the fact that serious and real criticism is an essential term for any real development (I do not believe in beliefs that do not survive criticism).

For me Mathematics is an open system that can be really developed only if it is opened to criticism, like any system that obeys Evolutionist realm.

The hard deductive method of the mathematical science is an anti-evolutionist approach because it works only within itself, which is a local-only viewpoint of this science for the past 2500 years.

As a result, each deductive system is a context-dependent one and it is based on the particular (and separated) meanings (manifested by axioms) given by particular mathematicians (that during the years become the paradigms of the rest of the community of mathematicians).

Notions that are used as crossed reference between different deductive systems, are not well established yet, and for a good reason, they are still based on Locality (known also as Deduction-only) as the only viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science.

For example, Galois groups still understand Symmetry by using a step-by-step (serial) transformation, (the researched system returns to its original state by step-by-step (serial) transformation).

By using Non-locality one can get Symmetry also by parallel viewpoint of the examined system, and in this case there is no step-by-step (serial) transformation, but the system understood simultaneously.

This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

[Darat]

doronshadmi - you have completely derailed this thread with your usual obsession, do it again and you will face further action which may include suspension or even banning. Thread closed.