Who is “God” ?

For Humans or the Universe?

I traced our conversation back, then I googled, " “dimensionless non-relativity of the absolute context

It returned:
There are no results for “dimensionless non-relativity of the absolute context”

  • Check your spelling or try different keywords"

I can factor in Buddhists, Yogis, and what you say. I wouldn’t call your words “infamous” though.

Mathematics is a useful human construct. Humans are not something separate from the Universe, their constructs included.

If you Googled it and no one else has said it exactly like I have, it means I’m full of wind?

Are you really unable to decipher the meaning on your own? (both of that one, or any of the other dozen or so ways I’ve tried to say the same thing).

As for Zero being an important addition to mathematics, I also think that the significance of the equals sign (=) should be considered. Since it indicates an absence of difference that might be helpful in grokking “non-relative infinitude”. (or am I grasping at straws here?)

Try looking up “undivided Whole”, and “absolute context” separately. If nothing else, Google’s algorithms will feed you variations on those themes till the cows come home. Maybe eventually something will click.

[quote=“brmckay, post:703, topic:7931”]
Mathematics is a useful human construct. Humans are not something separate from the Universe, their constructs included.

That argument does not hold. The mathematics of the Universe existed from the very beginning (see Chaos Theory) and created all orderly generic universal mathematical patterns including humans.

Codification and symbolization of generic Universal mathematics are human constructs. You seem to forget that all human mathematics are based on observation of universal properties, values, and functions.

But ask theoretical mathematicians and they will tell you that they are not inventing but discovering the mathematical nature of the universe.

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?

Even plants use the (human dubbed) Fibonacci Sequence, a product of billions of years of natural selection for the most mathematically efficient ordering of tree limbs, flower petals, and any natural vertical growing pattern that requires a balanced growth order. (see p.s. below)

[quote=“brmckay, post:704, topic:7931”]
As for Zero being an important addition to mathematics, I also think that the significance of the equals sign (=) should be considered. Since it indicates an absence of difference that might be helpful in grokking “non-relative infinitude”. (or am I grasping at straws here?)

I have no objection to the term, but I just cannot grasp what it means as compared to the more mundane interpretation of “Universal Geometry”.

I agree that “zero” as a mathematical value is a human invention. In nature zero just means “absence of value”.

But you are wrong in proposing that = means “no difference”.
The human symbol = means “of equal value”, but there can be significant differences in constituent parts

I recommend that you watch this interesting lecture by Roger Antonsen on some of the fundamental properties of mathematics and his sage advise to look at nature from several different (relative) perspectives in order to acquire “deeper understanding” of the Universe and it’s creative properties
Math is the hidden secret to understanding the world | Roger Antonsen - YouTube
(note the physical pattern that emerges from the number 4/3)

And of course there is Max Tegmark, who hypothesized a “Mathematical Universe” (see p.s. below)

Which btw, explains the concept of a creator God by people who misinterpreted the quasi-intelligent behavior of universal mathematical functions as being the product of a sentient agency.

Mathematics = (God minus intent). There is no possible way to tell the difference although the practical creative values are very different.

p.s. For those interested in the Universe and what makes it tick, I can recommend this excellent NOVA presentation.
Nova Science: A new discovery of the great Math Mystery Documentary HD 720p - YouTube

I found that in a crossword puzzle help page. One of the answers was “universe”

1 Like

No.

I can only tell you that I don’t understand. I think the things you are talking about develop for each of us over a lifetime. Boiling them down to short phrases is difficult.

1 Like

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.

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!

I have not forgotten anything…you just keep insisting that I’m miles behind you about this.

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”.

What do you mean by “almost all”? (pay attention when that happens! it is a chance to step through the “gateless gate” of immeasurability.)

What I said originally was “it indicates an absence of difference”. That would be in the aggregate patterns being compared.

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.

Don’t forget the subject being discussed is non-relative infinitude of the absolute context. The ultimate a-priori Truth.

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!!!

brmckay

22m

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.

I begged you not to do that.

And the rest of this conversation is pointless from here on…just so it is clear why I bailed: A “function” is a “thing” in my (and Lao Tsu’s) neck of the woods.

This is a good summary. It sounds like brmckay bailed before this. It reminds me of conversations I’ve had with people who insisted that a word that represents a thing, is a thing itself. There is a lot of philosophical discussion of that, it could be said that the neurons firing that makes up the thought of the word are a thing, but there’s something about that I don’t like. I start saying things like “we need the concept of a concept” so we can discuss what’s real.

It’s about language. Wittgenstein dealt with it, but his work is too dense for me to tackle. I can only lay out some of the limits, as the article below does, with questions like this;

For example, the questions “Can there be concepts without language?” is typically understood on the mental representation view as asking whether a pre-linguistic or non-linguistic agent can entertain mental representations of a particular kind. If one adopts the view that concepts are abstract objects, the corresponding question might be whether a pre-linguistic or non-linguistic agent can stand in the concept possession relation to concepts understood as abstract objects of a certain type. And if one adopts the view that concepts are abilities, the corresponding question might be whether a pre-linguistic or non-linguistic agent can have the abilities that are constitutive of concept possession.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/#IssTer

Seems to me that concepts are a result of ability to think. But concepts are not necessary for acting on, or reacting to environmental pressures.

A perfect example may be found in Daniel Dennett’s “Intentional Systems Theory” where an evolved system has an inherent intent to survive, when using that particular “stance” (perspective), even if that system is brainless.

Quorum sensing is such a (chemically based) system used by bacteria to “decide” when to become virulent in synchrony.