[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:20, topic:7024”]
I’d suggest that’s a philosophical claim more than “theoretical”.
Although, guess that begs the question, what’s the difference between “theoretical” and “philosophical”?
With theoretical I mean purely mathematical, which does not allow for any “uncertainty”
However if mathematical processes result in a treshold event such as a super-nova, then the mathematical chronology is disturbed and random forces are introduced which break the chronological order and fundamentally intruduces a new chaotic STATE
A good Rorschach Test of a sort. Depending on the mood, it could be read all sorts of ways.
I am trying to stay purely objective here, After all the concept of “determinism” rests on perfect mathematical chronologies.
All of that sounds to me like a new verse in the age old search for “certainty” - the self-certain Abrahamic search for the ultimate answer and key to everlasting power as if we were entitled brats.
I’m not going to talk you out of that age old yearning, still the fact remains those questions lie outside of human ability to actually grasp. Heck, we haven’t even gotten to grasp who we ourselves are. Earth’s evolution we can grasp and given the flood of new findings especially over the past half century or detailed evidence based understanding is staggering, but too few have taken the time to notice and truly absorb what we’ve learned ( because we’re always chasing the next breakthrough.) about our origins, plenty enough to put historical philosophy into museum. Time for some new philosophy that takes into account the fact of our biological origins, and the fact that our mind is the product of our body in action. Or any other creature for that matter.
Math is a human art form, a tool and a toy, not the key to god, or absolute certainty.
Human math is the symbolic representation of natural logic functions. It is not made up ad hoc, but from observed axiomatic behaviors.
If there is a god, it works via mathematics as the only possible way of explaining how things appear to work. There is no other possible method. All human mathematics are symbolic representations of natural interactive behaviors. i.e. (a + a) = 2a
That is what I am talking about. The language we use to describe reality is strictly dependent on understanding and by agreement of the merits of a single language consisting of a standardized symbolic representation.
As Gervais observed. "If you burn all the science books of today and reassemble them in a thousand years, the books would be fundamentally exactly the same as they are today.
Mathematics describes universal and natural mechanics.
No I don’t think it is.
What I’m talking about is the Human Mindscape ~Physical Reality Divide.
The Physical Reality is what it is.
Our observing it and our learning about it unfolds with our own minds, with all its limitations.
That’s what I’m trying to discuss.
The Abrahamic mindscape did away with that divide, instead convincing itself that it can be an impartial judge and jury about physical reality. Then the next thing we know, matter is nothing but empty space and Math is God and we’re right back in our self-centered certitudes that go off into ego driven self-serving blinkered tangents.
Like the difference between scientific facts and the way our minds mold those facts to fit our personal and societal preconceptions. As exemplified by the stumbling self-correcting nature of science and the knee slapping misjudgments that must regularly be corrected, based on the accumulation of evidence and experience.
Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D. is a seasoned clinician with experience working with adults, couples, families, adolescents and older children since 1976. His aim…Read More
“Water is wet, rocks are hard, the sky is blue, the grass is green, fires are hot, ice is cold, mountains are high and oceans are deep.”
—Adapted Zen saying
One of the ego’s favorite “problems” is the fantasy—reality gap, in other words, a gap between what it dreams up that we should, have to, need to, want, wish and expect (the fantasy) and the feedback from “what is” (the reality). The attitudes of wanting what is fair in an often unfair world, and wanting to be free in an often unfree world, illustrate this gap. When ego wants what it doesn’t have, or it doesn’t want what it does have, suffering is inevitable.
> Spiritual teacher Ajahn Chah says, “If it shouldn’t be this way, it wouldn’t be this way.” Similarly, should didn’t happen, and shouldn’t already happened!
The second of Buddha’s four noble truths says that suffering originates in desires or attachments. Translated into modern terms, suffering results from the desire that life be different from what it is now. Yet desires do not so much create the actual suffering as the compulsive holding on to and identification with desire do. A first step to peace lies in an easy, relaxed acceptance of “what is” here and now.
That’s one of the main points I’m trying to get across.
Your links are interesting, although they are focused on our relationship with our Ego and Emotional Health, rather then with our appreciating the big picture of the whole of the Reality around us. From my experience I found that a deeper appreciation of the big picture, inevitably leads to personal changes that result in the sort of attitude that Friedman is describing.
Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D.:
Happiness is likely to be “having what you want” leavened with gratitude. Rabbi Hyman Schachtel also wisely proposed, “Happiness is not having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.”
When one wants what one has and one doesn’t want what one doesn’t have, the fantasy-reality gap closes and stillness, peace and sanity naturally reign.
This is the springboard of our dearest yearnings, all to spearhead and manifest our heartfelt dreams and inspired visions. To live in truth takes practice, practice, practice…in surrender, surrender, surrender…every moment, moment, moment.
Hmmm. Never quite got your “Abrahamic” thing quite that way. Maybe because I see that as the same worldview humans had from the earliest cave paintings. But, glad you clarified. Then, the next problem is certainty, but we are making some progress on that. It’s tough to convince people that “not knowing” is somehow okay though.
That is how it appears to me. Quantum is a common denominator of all things.
If true, then it establishes a common foundation for building a common reality.
Hence Quantum Theory. The same seems to go for gravity , hence GR.
The problem is figuring out why quantum and gravity seem to present irreconcilable differences.