And upon what is this foundation of “Mathematics of the Universe” based? Not energy, gravity time, space, or conciousness since these things are expressions of the potential that mathematics represents.
I believe you gave the correct answer, but from the wrong perspective.
Gravity is not mathematics. Gravity behaves in accordance to generic (logical) mathematical geographical guiding principles.
"From relative observation it is a mathematical certainty that a falling object on earth will fall downward toward the center mass. It is mathematically impossible that a gravity can make an object fall upward away from the center-mass.
Our ideas and implementations of what we call mathematics are not the thing itself. That being the “Moon” that I’ve been pointing at this entire time!
Mathematics is not a “thing” it is a function!
I have not forgotten anything…you just keep insisting that I’m miles behind you about this.
No, just that our perspectives are divergent.
Input (value) → Function (mathematical calculations of values → Output (value).
Exactly! And ultimately immeasurability is recognized and acknowledged. Which changes nothing about the journey “The Tao that can be named, being the mother of the ten thousand things”.
The Tao that can be named is the “Universe” being the mother of current spacetime and everything therein. And that’s a lot more than 10,000 things!
Why is that term so hard to accept? We know its definition. Tao is undefined.
[quote=“write4u, post:705, topic:7931”]
“You are overlooking the fact that almost all animate and inanimate patterns are based on generic Universal mathematics . Do you know how many animals use mathematics in their everyday lives, albeit without knowing that they are using maths?”
What do you mean by “almost all”? (pay attention when that happens! it is a chance to step through the “gateless gate” of immeasurability.)
On the contrary, Almost all means "an insignificant difference, due to "undiscovered specimen.
Even the brainless slime-mold finds its food via a genericl mathematical function
i.e. subtraction
What I said originally was “it indicates an absence of difference”. That would be in the aggregate patterns being compared.
I agree. It is a mathematical equation. The moment you begin to speak of “differences” you enter the world of mathematics (differential equations).
And that is the relative part. If you have watched the Roger Antonsen clip, you will have increased your “understanding” by viewing patterns from “relative” perspectives, unless of course you know more about mathematics than Roger Antonsen.
It is as you say, the human in the equation imagining “value” to be what = actually indicates. Don’t forget the implicit simultaneity of Entirety. That “simultaneity” includes humans applying their mathematical exercises and discovery. All “significant differences in constituent parts” are resolved in the universal version of =. The Tao that cannot be named, or Kaivalya, or Entirety.
So is the concept of God, but their equality has significantly different constituent parts, no? You must hold the Tao in a more exalted place than God, no?
Does that make you an atheist?
Don’t forget the subject being discussed is non-relative infinitude of the absolute context. The ultimate a-priori Truth.
If it is non-relative, you don’t get to pick the relevant parts. Ignorance of the ultimate a priori truth is not an accomplishment at all. And knowledge of the ultimate a priori truth is also useless as a source of information and understanding. Both states of mind yield the same result. >
(that’s a mathematical statement)
My response to the subject of this forum titled: “Who is ‘God’?” My answer being “There is Only God”. (aka Reality-as-it-actually-is)
Please do not project “intention” onto the term “God” as I’ve used it here!!!
And what are you going to do with that insight?
If you mentally construct an abstract world, you have to be subjectively content with zero results from any mathematical function in that world.