No, I provided you a link to the intended comment. If you read it, I imagine that even you will find the above statement (in it's context) makes sense. If not, well, then it doesn't. No need to get all huffy about it.Telling you that you are not using logic and reason on site dedicated to that, is not being huffy. Please stop blaming me for your limitations. You've given no reason that anyone should consider you an authority on logic. The first step would be accurate interpretation and yet there has been none. Yet you've leaped to myriad conclusions despite it. I'm going to see what that ignore button does.
No, I provided you a link to the intended comment. If you read it, I imagine that even you will find the above statement (in it's context) makes sense. If not, well, then it doesn't. No need to get all huffy about it.Telling you that you are not using logic and reason on site dedicated to that, is not being huffy. Please stop blaming me for your limitations. You've given no reason that anyone should consider you an authority on logic. The first step would be accurate interpretation and yet there has been none. Yet you've leaped to myriad conclusions despite it. I'm going to see what that ignore button does. The first response I made was about your lack of logic from "no-thing" to "the word" or whatever it was you said. The burden is on you to explain that. You're ignoring me already so the button won't change much.
I am still mulling over your assertion that the language of Mathematics is too restrictive for explaining Metaphysics and that Language allows for greater freedom of expression.
I wonder why you feel that way, because I feel the exact opposite way.
“Such algebras have an intrinsic value for separate detailed study; also they are worthy of comparative study, for the sake of the light thereby thrown on the general theory of symbolic reasoning, and on algebraic symbolism in particular … The idea of a generalized conception of space has been made prominent, in the belief that the properties and operations involved in it can be made to form a uniform method of interpretation of the various algebras.” (Whitehead)
Is there an intrinsic difference between a letter and a number? Is a letter more definitive that a number? Is a word more definitive than a set of numbers?
Please explain.
And here is a review of Bohm's Lifework; http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:Thank you. I am grateful for the link to Bohm's work. The following quote taken from the segment on his dialogues with Krishnamurti, pretty much says exactly what I have been getting at. Right down to the use of the term "no-thingness".
The Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue set a profound precedent in being one of the first enduring dialogues between a leading Western physicist and a world-renowned Eastern spiritual master. Their discussions probed deeply into various dimensions of human knowledge and experience, including in-depth discussions of the limitations of human thought, the nature of insight and intelligence beyond thought, as well as many other topics such as truth, reality, death, existence, fragmentation, and the future of humanity. In exploring the distinction between truth and reality, for example, some of the jewels of insight that emerged may be summarized as follows (which, in the spirit of Bohm and Krishnamurti themselves, should perhaps be read slowly and contemplatively to be absorbed). There is a gulf between truth and reality; they are not the same thing. Illusion and falsehood are certainly part of reality, but they are not part of truth. Truth includes all that is; it is one. Reality is conditioned and multiple. Truth is beyond reality; it comprehends reality, but not vice versa. Reality is everything; truth is no-thingness. We need truth, but our minds are occupied with reality. We seek security in reality, but authentic security comes only in complete nothingness, that is, only in truth. The seed of truth is a mystery that thought cannot encompass; it is beyond reality.This should save us days of ineffectual back and forth. It being the only point I really needed to make. Are you becoming a Bohmian convert? :)
@Lausten, I am still mulling over your assertion that the language of Mathematics is too restrictive for explaining Metaphysics and that Language allows for greater freedom of expression. I wonder why you feel that way, because I feel the exact opposite way. Is there an intrinsic difference between a letter and a number? Is a letter more definitive that a number? Is a word more definitive than a set of numbers? Please explain.I see. I wasn't comparing letters to numbers. I was comparing whatever brmkay was doing to a very precise language that has allowed us to understand the origins of the universe. I didn't make that assertion, so I'm not going to try to untangle it.
@Lausten, I am still mulling over your assertion that the language of Mathematics is too restrictive for explaining Metaphysics and that Language allows for greater freedom of expression. I wonder why you feel that way, because I feel the exact opposite way. Is there an intrinsic difference between a letter and a number? Is a letter more definitive that a number? Is a word more definitive than a set of numbers? Please explain.I see. I wasn't comparing letters to numbers. I was comparing whatever brmkay was doing to a very precise language that has allowed us to understand the origins of the universe. I didn't make that assertion, so I'm not going to try to untangle it. Yes, I may have confused poster names. Sorry about that. Then I shall ask brmckay the same question. BR, can you explain the reason why you feel that way?
Just a musing, when we record a Shakespeare sonnet we do so algebraicly, digitally (mathematical language). When that recording is retranslated to sound or text, will it have lost “meaning” in the sonnet?
It is normally assumed that p should be an irreducible polynomial. The existence of an algebraic function is then guaranteed by the implicit function theorem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_function_theorem The language of internal universal communication is fundamentally Mathematical in its purest form. It is a timelessly true function. A Universal Potential. I believe Bohm called it "Mathematical Insight Intelligence".
Hmmm…
I am still mulling over your assertion that the language of Mathematics is too restrictive for explaining Metaphysics and that Language allows for greater freedom of expression.You would be spinning your wheels then. Since I didn't say that. This is an example of a conclusion leaped to, based on a misinterpretation. (or possibly, a politically motivated lack of interpretation. Only you can know.)
Please explain.My original statement taken at face value should explain itself. (Trying to limit ourselves to a mathematically interpretable experience strikes me as unnatural, and frankly impossible.) (Edit: Write4U, I submitted the above thinking that I was being pestered by Lausten and want to apologize for the tone.)
Are you becoming a Bohmian convert? :)Truth isn't something that one converts to, just learns to recognize. I am grateful for confirmation from such heavyweights as him and Krishnamurti. I am also pleasantly surprised.
@ Write4U
Mathematics and English don’t exist in “truth”, only in “reality”.
Our experience (interpretation of observations) is the subjective expression of the objective.
subjective and objective don’t exist in “truth” only in “reality”.
The infinities of mathematics do not exist in “truth” only in “reality”
So, for sure, if one is contemplating “truth”, Mathematics or English won’t do.
And, when contemplating “reality”, I prefer to increasingly engage the whole being.
Since in “truth” there is no difference.
@ Write4U Mathematics and English don't exist in "truth", only in "reality". Our experience (interpretation of observations) is the subjective expression of the objective. subjective and objective don't exist in "truth" only in "reality". The infinities of mathematics do not exist in "truth" only in "reality" So, for sure, if one is contemplating "truth", Mathematics or English won't do. And, when contemplating "reality", I prefer to increasingly engage the whole being. Since in "truth" there is no difference."Truth" is a pathless land.
@ Write4U Mathematics and English don't exist in "truth", only in "reality".I disagree. "Communication' (exchange of data) is an abstract property (potential) of the universe in the dynamic functions of all physical and meta-physical orders and processes. This "internal universal communication' must be mathematical or chaos could never be ordered. A photon will not cease to travel, because we just wish it to stop. We can physically stop a photon, but then only the mathematics of the event becomes apparent by its wave function and its mathematical restrictive freedom of travelling @ "c", (a functional limit). Not a wish or a verbal command can alter that mathematical function.. We invented Mathematical language to accurately describe the observable mechanical functions of the universe.. We invented the Alphabetical language to verbally describe the conditions which may require the use of the mathematical function to explain the apparent difference of interpretation of an observed event from two separate and distnicly different observational viewpoints.
Our experience (interpretation of observations) is the subjective expression of the objective.I agree, but it does not provide mathematical proof, thus our mental and emotional experience of the objective truth is purely subjective and highly unreliable as to fundamental objective truth.:
subjective and objective don't exist in "truth" only in "reality".I disagree, Objective (abstract) truth exists in reality of our universe, our subjective experience of "truth" (reality) is relative to our knowledge of "abstract functons".
The infinities of mathematics do not exist in "truth" only in "reality"I disagree, the mathematical function exists in truth, which may be completely counter-intuitive to our sujective experience of reality. Considere the Doppler effect, let me pose an example: Two observers with accurate musical pitch meters, placed a mile apart from each along a railroad track. Between them a train travels while blowing its horn. The next day these two observers compare the results of their meters and each meter confirms the truth of each musicians personal experiences. One Musician observed the pitch to be a musical frequency of (A) and the other observed the pitch of the horn to be a musical frequecy of (B). Who is correct and who wrong (or is lying)? The answer of course, is that they both speak truth (as proven by their pitch meters), but they are both factually incorrect about the actual pitch of the train's horn, which was at the musical note (Bflat). A third observer on the train, would hear the actual TRUE pitch (emitted by the horn on the train) as (Bflat) The first two measurements were were (subjectively) RELATIVELY TRUE, the third measurement is (objectively) MATHEMATICALLY TRUE.
So, for sure, if one is contemplating "truth", Mathematics or English won't do.I disagree, Truth can only be mathematical. Alphabetical language (English, French, Chinese) can only abstractly describe (approximate) the functions and expressions . Alphabetical language can only describe a result in our reality, but in subjective relative terms only. Any proof of truth always requires the use of mathematical language.
And, when contemplating "reality", I prefer to increasingly engage the whole being. Since in "truth" there is no difference.But then you are assuming that the human brain (computer) has the ability to access objective truth. This is demonstrably false since no two persons see, interpret, or emotionally process identical information in exactly the same way. In human terms, there are as many truths as there are human minds. But there is only ONE objective Universal truth. Mathematics have no such garbage attached to it. It is universally understandable and applicable. Our global scientific use of the same Maths are the only tool to objectively, dispassionately, neutrally, analyze and translate the nature and functions of the universe in the clear unambigous language of Mathematics. I am not saying that our maths have solved all the questions (yet). The questions, answers, and mathematical functions (language) of metaphysical mathematics are still being discovered and not yet MATHEMATICALLY FORMALIZED. But I'll wager, if there is meta-physical Order, it must be in according to a mathematical function, else there would never be "order from chaos" The proposition that somehow people can physically and emotionally experience these metaphysical functions, is just a self induced "state of mind", IMO Our mental and emotional experiences are governed by the ability of the individual's brain. It can be demonstrated that the human brain, for all its sophistication, is highly unreliable in its perceptions which may appear to be true to the individual, but not true for another (Relativity) and worse, not true al all, such as in optical illusions, which are experienced as true events, but factually completely incorrect. Hence the term "Illusion". The maths have corrected the human imaginations on numerous occasions. Thus the proposition a Universal God which has an internal dialogue (exchange of data), other than mathematics and could be identified as a "Word", is not only inaccurate, but misleading as a area of inquiry. Such a language can be used among humans to establish a "contract". "I give you my Word (of Honor) that I will pay you in regular payments (a mathematical contract)" would work at that level, but "I give you a WORD (Alpha and Omega) is an arbitrary and meaningless value. IMO, it stifles scientific inquiry in an objective way. Hence our "confounding of languages". There is no confusion in the language of Mathematics. IMO, the opening phrase of the bible sets a false premise by which all consequent logic is rendered fruit of a poisoned tree. With due respect to the positive secular values contained in scripture. IMHO, the bible opening line, instead of "In the beginning was the Word", should read: "In the beginning was the "Function".
Functions of various kinds are "the central objects of investigation"[2] in most fields of modern mathematics. There are many ways to describe or represent a function. Some functions may be defined by a formula or algorithm that tells how to compute the output for a given input. Others are given by a picture, called the graph of the function. In science, functions are sometimes defined by a table that gives the outputs for selected inputs. A function could be described implicitly, for example as the inverse to another function or as a solution of a differential equation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics) If we compare this dedicated, rigorous objective scientific recording and analysis of natural functions, to the self proclaimed "truth"s based on dedicated rigorous but individually subjective perceptual recording of "apparent miraculous events" and the wholly subjective conclusion that "God did it" cannot be considered as a "reliable" source of knowledge. Indeed the concept of God, begins with "In the beginning was the Word" And then cited that the word is a duality, "the Alpha and Omega". A mathematical equation..... :) To me that makes absolutely no sense in terms of the Mathematical Function. But "Functions did it" is a defendable explanation of Causality. Quantum Mechanics (functions), Bohmian Mecanics (functions), etc, etc. Can we fashion a Theist Mechanics (functions) in science? NO, because all functions are mathematical. And there you have it.
@ Write4U #153
Some thoughts.
- Objective truth is not what Bohm and Krishnamurti were calling “truth”.
- Can there be “function”/“word” if there is no unit; No second?
- My earlier strident declaration:
The Word is the first THING.Indicates your"function". That first THING is what? Potential? Awareness? Self? Relativity? "Reality"? It is the Emergent Characteristic of absolute infinitude. NOW math exists.
Endless iterations later, here we are. Yet the infinitude of the foundation permeates entirely.Like an origami swan. One nature folded infinitely upon itself. We are defined by our brains only as an abstraction. Our original nature remains untouched.
"Truth" is a pathless land.Beautifully said.
"Truth" is a pathless land.Beautifully said. That is poetic, but not an accurate approximation of the causality of the Universe. I would rephrase this to read: Truth: "Mathematics is the path by which Potential becomes expressed as reality". The following is a comprehensive analysis of Bohm's vision of the hierarchical ordering into physical truths.
One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy, working backward from the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.(Bolded by me) Absolute Being = Condition'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. The Implicate order is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science JournalWhen Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality. The Zero Point Order which Bohm identified as the realm of insight-intelligence bears an unmistakable resemblance to the supreme spiritual realization of Indian metaphysics known as the Brahman, a perfectly inactive, pure noetic plenum realized as Absolute Being. The Brahman is characterized by a complete fusion of Time and Consciousness which is experienced as Timelessness, or undifferentiated Time. In this state Time-energy vibrates at such an intense rate that it appears static and thereby lacking any element of periodicity or denseness. Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space.http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html
Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in SpaceI interpret that to mean; Potential, Brahman, Absolute Being, Condition, can never express themselves directly in our Reality. Thus the terms like, "acts of God", 'miracles', or "hand of god" are false. It is all part of a continual mathematical process. The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future. Thus it must also be a property (a potential) of the Wholeness. Consider: when/where mathematical function fails, the result is either chaos or nothing. Don't misunderstand, with the term Mathematics I am not referring to our invention of mathematical symbols as a universal language. It is a Function in the dynamic wholeness. Can it be otherwise? I highly doubt it. The mathematical function (in the abstract) is a perfect function for processing "packets of information", physical or metaphysical. We even use it to create AI.
"Truth" is a pathless land.Beautifully said. I can only take credit for the timing and my personal vague sense of satire.
"Truth" is a pathless land.Beautifully said. I can only take credit for the timing and my personal vague sense of satire. If you had said "pure potential is a pathless landscape" (nothing is implied, yet), you'd be right on track with Bohm.
Absolute Being = ConditionI would be more inclined to say Absolute Being = Primal Awareness. If you reference Brahman, what then about Atman? (and what does this imply for AI?)Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in SpaceI interpret that to mean; Potential, Brahman, Absolute Being, Condition, can never express themselves directly in our Reality. Thus the terms like, "acts of God", 'miracles', or "hand of god" are false. It is all part of a continual mathematical process. The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future. Thus it must also be a property (a potential) of the Wholeness. Consider: when/where mathematical function fails, the result is either chaos or nothing. Don't misunderstand, with the term Mathematics I am not referring to our invention of mathematical symbols as a universal language. It is a Function in the dynamic wholeness. Can it be otherwise? I highly doubt it. The mathematical function (in the abstract) is a perfect function for processing "packets of information", physical or metaphysical. We even use it to create AI.
The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future.Yes, but the function arises with the first thing. The function is a result of the primal cause. I understand that the function is not the language, but nature itself. Primal Awareness compounding in increasingly complex combinations. Like a hall of infinite mirrors. But there must first be something to reflect and to reflect upon. My emphasis on "awareness" seems to be a source of difference between us. It reminds me of my own critique of the Deistic apartheid. Whereby the primal cause resides somewhere else, disassociated from the results of it's causation. My understanding would be that we humans particularize miracles as events. The hand of God, as actions in time. In "truth" though, the "miracle" is a constant state. A steady stream. Residing in that awareness is enlightenment. The realization of Atman. Non-differentiation. Original nature.