julianlaboy

Math and Ontology

Recommended Posts

Today I talked with a friend of mine about mathematics. In general, he was saying that the content of math exists "out there". That we gave names to numbers and equations, but that it does not need us to exist. Numbers and their rules exist "a priori" (before we even know about them) rather than "a posteriori" (math needing us and how we experience it). He said the same about abstract/analytical logic. Math exists out there.

 

I said that math is just a game. We set the rules, we give names and that now exists by its own. Numbers and their rules have a circular manner to them because that is our way of explaining how we experience what we call the world. Euclidean geometry was refuted by present-day geometry, physics is giving way to certain "nonsense", among other examples of how numbers and math change with time. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, and an alien will get it. But that will happen only when we explain (if they could understand our language) that game's rules. To my understanding, it's impossible to go beyond what we are (mind-body + structurally coupling with our circumstances). Because of that, saying that there is an ideal 2, or an ideal 4, or an ideal 2 + 2 = 4 is outside of what we can say about what we call world. I believe that there is a problem with saying what is "out there" because what is out there has everything to do with what we are.

 

What do you think? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

julianlaboy,

 

When I read what you posted and the talk you had with your friend I remembered a talk I had a while back that sort of directly maps and correlates... so here is my two cents...

 

In my talk I was talking about knowledge... and we did even got to the notion of the existence "out there" vs "only within". I started with the notion that knowledge only existed within a mind and considered that the notion of it existing "out there" absurd, though I do hold that there is a reality out there independent of us... in any event while it's impossible for us to go beyond what we are we can go beyond what we are under certain circumstances. The ideal can help us be more than we can be...

 

Now what we believe can help us or hinder us to understand what be "out there" ... some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are and some of it has to do with other stuff and of course there be other possibilities and realities. To make a long story short I eventually realized that beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse... in any event during the talk I learned to shift and translate between belief languages and even managed to understand that some functional properties are in fact related to the coordinate system used.

 

If you are interested in exploring this further let me know... what I have said here is a highly condensed... hope it help you see things

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today I talked with a friend of mine about mathematics. In general, he was saying that the content of math exists "out there". That we gave names to numbers and equations, but that it does not need us to exist. Numbers and their rules exist "a priori" (before we even know about them) rather than "a posteriori" (math needing us and how we experience it). He said the same about abstract/analytical logic. Math exists out there.

 

I said that math is just a game. We set the rules, we give names and that now exists by its own. Numbers and their rules have a circular manner to them because that is our way of explaining how we experience what we call the world. Euclidean geometry was refuted by present-day geometry, physics is giving way to certain "nonsense", among other examples of how numbers and math change with time. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, and an alien will get it. But that will happen only when we explain (if they could understand our language) that game's rules. To my understanding, it's impossible to go beyond what we are (mind-body + structurally coupling with our circumstances). Because of that, saying that there is an ideal 2, or an ideal 4, or an ideal 2 + 2 = 4 is outside of what we can say about what we call world. I believe that there is a problem with saying what is "out there" because what is out there has everything to do with what we are.

 

What do you think? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho a more descriptive phrase would be "exists independently of," rather than designations of here or there. sorta like the 'individual right to free speech' - it requires nothing of you in order for it to exist for anyone else. thusness exists, it needs nothing to sustain its existence. regardless of what we call it, the structural entity, the resonance, to core of the descriptor - the moon, not "the moon" or "luna" of whatever one calls it merely to be able to provide a frame of reference. mathematical entities are abstract descriptors that are about as close as you can get to an actual physical description - but its mostly by describing the relationships thereof.

 

euclidean geometry was not refuted, it was merely brought into its proper context as a geometry, not the geometry. einstein did not refute newton, he merely adjusted some fine tuning and made it more accurate, albeit with a much more complicated set of equations.

 

that's the beauty of "the game's rules" - if we wanted to show an alien something, a mathematical construct doesnt have different languages for one to call it 'something' vs 'something else.' examined on a level of relationships and you have what you have, regardless of what letter you use for a given variable.

 

:)

 

man I hate fixing toilets :glare: (not being facetious, I needed a break :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho a more descriptive phrase would be "exists independently of," rather than designations of here or there. sorta like the 'individual right to free speech' - it requires nothing of you in order for it to exist for anyone else. thusness exists, it needs nothing to sustain its existence. regardless of what we call it, the structural entity, the resonance, to core of the descriptor - the moon, not "the moon" or "luna" of whatever one calls it merely to be able to provide a frame of reference. mathematical entities are abstract descriptors that are about as close as you can get to an actual physical description - but its mostly by describing the relationships thereof.

 

euclidean geometry was not refuted, it was merely brought into its proper context as a geometry, not the geometry. einstein did not refute newton, he merely adjusted some fine tuning and made it more accurate, albeit with a much more complicated set of equations.

 

that's the beauty of "the game's rules" - if we wanted to show an alien something, a mathematical construct doesnt have different languages for one to call it 'something' vs 'something else.' examined on a level of relationships and you have what you have, regardless of what letter you use for a given variable.

 

:)

 

man I hate fixing toilets :glare: (not being facetious, I needed a break :lol: )

 

You are absolutely right when you said "euclidean geometry was not refuted...", etc. When I posted that I immediately wanted to change it but meeeeeeh. That whole not-"the"-geometry point was what I wanted to communicate. The same happened with Einstein and his Theory of Relativity (special and more or less general) as you mentioned. And the same happened with the new set of rules given by quantum mechanics. I wanted to emphasize how change tends to define our rules.

 

What I was thinking was that maybe a reality exists independently of ourselves, but I just cannot say in an absolute and final manner that it does because we are indeed limited by being what we call a mind-body and however we describe it. We perceive it in the way that you say, and I agree. I also maintain that thusness exists. But I say it in my frame of reference as a human being (again a concept with different meanings...). I feel that I cannot say anything beyond that level of relationships. I'm speaking of something beyond changing the word "two" for "owt" but having the same rule. That's why I included the word ontology in the Subject. Objectivity is something that I fear cannot be explained without reference to ourselves as we view ourselves (pardon my redundancy).

 

And of course, best of luck with that toilet!! They are indeed tricky, hehe..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well kinda like heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you cant perfectly accurately describe an experience or something (darned though we may try) so it is simply an inherent limit of speech, not necessarily of conscious existence. that's why experiencing something conveys all sort of meaning that words simply cannot :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

julianlaboy,

 

In my talk I was talking about knowledge... and we did even got to the notion of the existence "out there" vs "only within". I started with the notion that knowledge only existed within a mind and considered that the notion of it existing "out there" absurd, though I do hold that there is a reality out there independent of us... in any event while it's impossible for us to go beyond what we are we can go beyond what we are under certain circumstances. The ideal can help us be more than we can be...

 

Now what we believe can help us or hinder us to understand what be "out there" ... some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are and some of it has to do with other stuff and of course there be other possibilities and realities. To make a long story short I eventually realized that beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse... in any event during the talk I learned to shift and translate between belief languages and even managed to understand that some functional properties are in fact related to the coordinate system used.

 

If you are interested in exploring this further let me know... what I have said here is a highly condensed... hope it help you see things

 

et-thoughts, love the name! hehe There is so much to talk about! I understood everything you said, don't worry.

 

I see subtle differences in what we think; we share a lot. The concept of "knowledge" is very important here. I do think that knowledge exists within a mind-body. I don't consider the notion of "out there" or "exists independetly of" as absurd. It is very practical and we can hold it up to a point. As you say, "The ideal can help us be more than we can be...". As I said to joeblast, the problem resides in the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure that we can point to (or think of) something and explain that "that" is "something a priori".

 

I love that "some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are" phrase. You are absolutely right and that's why I speak of a mind-body. In my humble opinion, it is impossible to explain or define something without making reference to something else.

 

You also say that "beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse". I agree, but I would be more careful saying that because I don't think that there are "correct" or "normal" perceptions. There are indeed consensus and that's why we say we understand each other. But that's completely statistical. Beliefs tints what one could perceive, but that happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds).

 

If I made things worse and made things confusing, sorry. I wanted to cover various things from your comments and got exited and maybe talked very incoherently, hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well kinda like heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you cant perfectly accurately describe an experience or something (darned though we may try) so it is simply an inherent limit of speech, not necessarily of conscious existence. that's why experiencing something conveys all sort of meaning that words simply cannot :)

 

I don't think we can go outside language. Maybe it's because I haven't had a moment that would change my opinion; I cannot say.

 

And hey! I want an update on the toilet thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that every description, explanation, depiction, illustration, model or example is an abstraction. The loss of fidelity inherent in an abstraction is directly (but not solely) related to the match between the language being used and the particular characteristic of interest in the slice of reality one is attempting to portray. Mathematics is a language that is remarkably good for describing logical relationships but remarkably bad for describing the beauty of a sunset. It is excellent, however, for helping to explain the "how" of a sunset.

 

As to the question of inside vs. outside, I would say that very little of my math skills are inate. I would also say that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality, it is not that reality itself. Math is an invented language used to discuss "external" concepts from the logical side of reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that every description, explanation, depiction, illustration, model or example is an abstraction. The loss of fidelity inherent in an abstraction is directly (but not solely) related to the match between the language being used and the particular characteristic of interest in the slice of reality one is attempting to portray. Mathematics is a language that is remarkably good for describing logical relationships but remarkably bad for describing the beauty of a sunset. It is excellent, however, for helping to explain the "how" of a sunset.

 

As to the question of inside vs. outside, I would say that very little of my math skills are inate. I would also say that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality, it is not that reality itself. Math is an invented language used to discuss "external" concepts from the logical side of reality.

 

I agree that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality. In my opinion we live in a world full of language (and language is not just words). When speaking about what's out there, or what exists independently of us, I think we cannot say anything. Just feel and maybe make some assumptions and inferences.

 

I need more people like all of you in the island I live!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality. In my opinion we live in a world full of language (and language is not just words). When speaking about what's out there, or what exists independently of us, I think we cannot say anything. Just feel and maybe make some assumptions and inferences.

 

I need more people like all of you in the island I live!! smile.gif

 

 

I struggle with the inside/outside thing from a different angle -- as I see it, we are not distinct from the "out there" but instead are an interacting component of the "what is."

 

Have you ever been in the mountains and experienced the distinction between fog and low clouds? In my perception, a similar relationship exists between inner & outer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

julianlaboy,

 

The name stems from my initials ... glad you liked it...

 

Let me ask you this "do you find absurd the notion that two separate beings (mind-body-spirit) can actually hold within themselves identical-understandings"?

That is, what you understand and what I understand be one and the same? or to use another metaphor the map and the territory be one and the same?

 

I noticed you said "...the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure..." ultimately we may just have to accept the fact that we just can't be sure and that its rather irrelevant to actually be sure... we may just have to believe and move on... BTW prepare yourself... for the fun of it and hopefully to show you that it is possible to explain something by just referencing something I am going to explain and define something without making reference to something else... here goes, three in a row: "what be" be "what be", the truth be the truth, a be a... notice that those that know 'what be', the truth, a, lets call them the enlightened, do understand, while the unenlightened find the 'explaining' absurd :-) UNTIL they get it and become enlightened :-)... its a bit esoteric, those that already know the stuff are the only ones that can know the stuff and for those who do not know it already, noting will get them to know the stuff until they just know it...

 

How do you reconcile the following two notions:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

 

It seems to me that if one considers stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of" THEN it follows that the 'correct perception' involves having a model that does correctly recreate what be out there within itself.

 

BTW the fact we may claim we understand each other may be true or false depending on 'what be' the truth of the matter... 'what be' and 'what we claim to be' may be in agreement or disagreement depending on what be and what we claim to be ... Once I read that the truth is accepted or rejected not the result of some consensus ( it was framed/worded a bit better though the essence is there)... in any event glad we agree that 'beliefs tints what one could perceive'... you seem to believe that this happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds)... where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether.

 

FWIIW - the absolute meaning of a word is relative to its use ... and each time it is used it may change or not

 

Why worry about making things confusing when we can choose better options... confident that eventually the experience will be enlightening...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the beauty of "the game's rules" - if we wanted to show an alien something, a mathematical construct doesnt have different languages for one to call it 'something' vs 'something else.' examined on a level of relationships and you have what you have, regardless of what letter you use for a given variable.

 

:)

 

man I hate fixing toilets :glare: (not being facetious, I needed a break :lol: )

 

Depending on the coordinate system in use the diagram you get from the function (or the function you get from the diagram) can be quite different and may even be a bit more complicated... conceive of a simple linear relationship... a line with a slope... hope you see the spiral... and the inclined line and the circle and the horizontal line... beliefs are like coordinate systems in use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality. In my opinion we live in a world full of language (and language is not just words). When speaking about what's out there, or what exists independently of us, I think we cannot say anything. Just feel and maybe make some assumptions and inferences.

 

I need more people like all of you in the island I live!! :)

 

the map - the territory- the distinctions are three independent worlds that can help each other to explore and expand each one...

 

highly condensed though I hope you see the unfolment... if need be will elaborate latter ... have to go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can go outside language. Maybe it's because I haven't had a moment that would change my opinion; I cannot say.

 

And hey! I want an update on the toilet thing!

Sure we can get outside of language, your inner being knows all the answers. Its your job to translate it. Its also up to you how you go about translating that state of knowingness and certainty that is your core true natural default state of being. We have trouble translating our knowingness and then make it such a big problem in our minds eyes that we feel contained by the problem and thats when we make statements such as "I think we'll never be able to go outside of language" lol

 

I did channel mathematics ones. I would certainly say its possible. Myself having never channeled anything in my life managed to approach the answer of a differiental challenge. With math, you may make mistakes during channeling. Yet, as you channel, all information you receive is purely for the moment of receiving them. You receive blocks of thought. As you mistranslate the blocks of thought the probabilities change and the blocks of thoughts change. This results in huge formula's that are very complex. So it is all a matter of clearing your mind and opening up to the information in whatever way you desire to receive it. I receive it trough sound. Where each block of thought contains sounds of multiple figures and symbols. I receive the blocks of sound vibrations trough the heart chest area and throat and tongue sensations and urges to speak these sounds. Almost like a tourette syndrom :lol:

 

Its also important to recognize that whatever you receive is only as good as the question that is being asked. I'm not sure if there are any math channelers. Coulden't find any on youtube :lol:

Atleast not in the sense of a "clear minded" channel that knows no math. I love to channel more math perhaps in the future. Hope it works, I may become a math channeler! That would be hilarious!

Edited by Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole universe is said to be built upon the progression of numbers. This wisdom of numbers was called arithmesophia, and its contemplation could bring a man to understand how the universe came into existence. By looking at the relationships between numbers, we can get a glimpse into the internal machinery of the world of matter, and even glimpse beyond matter, beyond forms. The odd numbers represent the male aspect, and 1 represents the Father. 2 the female aspect, duality. This is why the Father is seen to impregnate existence into the womb of the divine mother. The plane of matter is always seen to be feminine in the scriptures. Every number has a meaning. If you examine closely, you may be able to see which gods of the old pantheon's relate to the numbers 1-9. The gods are aspects of the universe, given personalities based on how the forces they represent act in nature.

 

In other words, the relationships between numbers are there not by chance, but out of necessity. Numbers have relationships because this universe came into existence by natural principles and relationships- and numbers are bound by these natural principles because numbers exist within this universe. Numbers are the cogs and wheels that allow this divine machine to run. By relationships I mean for example why 9+9=18, and 1+8=9. 18+9 again is 27 and once again 2+7=9. Do you see this amazing property of the number 9? This is a repeating pattern. So then we must ask what it means for two numbers to be multiplied, and to be added, etc. This exists for a reason. And there is occult meaning in all of these relationships.

 

A divine science indeed, that can shed light on nature's laws. The wise philosophers of the past did not investigate arithmetic for no small reason, nor was Pythagoras only a mathematician as we learn in our schools as children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole universe is said to be built upon the progression of numbers. This wisdom of numbers was called arithmesophia, and its contemplation could bring a man to understand how the universe came into existence. By looking at the relationships between numbers, we can get a glimpse into the internal machinery of the world of matter, and even glimpse beyond matter, beyond forms. The odd numbers represent the male aspect, and 1 represents the Father. 2 the female aspect, duality. This is why the Father is seen to impregnate existence into the womb of the divine mother. The plane of matter is always seen to be feminine in the scriptures. Every number has a meaning. If you examine closely, you may be able to see which gods of the old pantheon's relate to the numbers 1-9. The gods are aspects of the universe, given personalities based on how the forces they represent act in nature.

 

In other words, the relationships between numbers are there not by chance, but out of necessity. Numbers have relationships because this universe came into existence by natural principles and relationships- and numbers are bound by these natural principles because numbers exist within this universe. Numbers are the cogs and wheels that allow this divine machine to run. By relationships I mean for example why 9+9=18, and 1+8=9. 18+9 again is 27 and once again 2+7=9. Do you see this amazing property of the number 9? This is a repeating pattern. So then we must ask what it means for two numbers to be multiplied, and to be added, etc. This exists for a reason. And there is occult meaning in all of these relationships.

 

A divine science indeed, that can shed light on nature's laws. The wise philosophers of the past did not investigate arithmetic for no small reason, nor was Pythagoras only a mathematician as we learn in our schools as children.

Numbers solve the problems that have been created by the numbers. To truely solve the universe, one must give up the language and surrender it.

 

In reality 1+1=1

The one is all and the all are one. This is how existance is structured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also important to recognize that whatever you receive is only as good as the question that is being asked.

 

The possibilities are infinite though the user usually constrained them to what they thinks possible... until they realize what be truly possible :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers solve the problems that have been created by the numbers. To truely solve the universe, one must give up the language and surrender it.

 

In reality 1+1=1

The one is all and the all are one. This is how existance is structured.

 

Well sometimes in reality 1+1 = 1 and nine months later the the one consisting of two end up with a third one... so two become one and end up as three ... its perfectly clear from the equation ! see there the three ones, two on one side and one on the other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I failed to mention numbers themselves in my post above. Well, not so much "numbers" alone but the concepts and principles underlying mathematics, said concepts & principles including numbers...

 

Numbers, like life, simply are. There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers. Like the number 42, for instance -- 42 just is. (It is indicative of a particular position in a ordered sequence regardless of the language or base used to express it.)

 

Both life and numbers do have purposes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The possibilities are infinite though the user usually constrained them to what they thinks possible... until they realize what be truly possible :-)

Yeah, true. From the standpoint of the problem, the only perceivable solution is yet another problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, true. From the standpoint of the problem, the only perceivable solution is yet another problem.

Oh it gets better... for from the standpoint of the solution, its quite evident that there was a problem to solve ... when in fact the situation at hand calls for a singular realization that transmutes the dualistic problem-solution duo into a singular opportunity of multiple paths... Maybe even creating an experience of 'enlightenment' :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggle with the inside/outside thing from a different angle -- as I see it, we are not distinct from the "out there" but instead are an interacting component of the "what is."

 

Have you ever been in the mountains and experienced the distinction between fog and low clouds? In my perception, a similar relationship exists between inner & outer.

 

We are not speaking at different angles. I agree with that. That is what I meant when speaking of "structural coupling".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

julianlaboy,

 

The name stems from my initials ... glad you liked it...

 

Let me ask you this "do you find absurd the notion that two separate beings (mind-body-spirit) can actually hold within themselves identical-understandings"?

That is, what you understand and what I understand be one and the same? or to use another metaphor the map and the territory be one and the same?

 

I noticed you said "...the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure..." ultimately we may just have to accept the fact that we just can't be sure and that its rather irrelevant to actually be sure... we may just have to believe and move on... BTW prepare yourself... for the fun of it and hopefully to show you that it is possible to explain something by just referencing something I am going to explain and define something without making reference to something else... here goes, three in a row: "what be" be "what be", the truth be the truth, a be a... notice that those that know 'what be', the truth, a, lets call them the enlightened, do understand, while the unenlightened find the 'explaining' absurd :-) UNTIL they get it and become enlightened :-)... its a bit esoteric, those that already know the stuff are the only ones that can know the stuff and for those who do not know it already, noting will get them to know the stuff until they just know it...

 

How do you reconcile the following two notions:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

 

It seems to me that if one considers stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of" THEN it follows that the 'correct perception' involves having a model that does correctly recreate what be out there within itself.

 

BTW the fact we may claim we understand each other may be true or false depending on 'what be' the truth of the matter... 'what be' and 'what we claim to be' may be in agreement or disagreement depending on what be and what we claim to be ... Once I read that the truth is accepted or rejected not the result of some consensus ( it was framed/worded a bit better though the essence is there)... in any event glad we agree that 'beliefs tints what one could perceive'... you seem to believe that this happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds)... where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether.

 

FWIIW - the absolute meaning of a word is relative to its use ... and each time it is used it may change or not

 

Why worry about making things confusing when we can choose better options... confident that eventually the experience will be enlightening...

 

 

I agree also with you when you speak of "the enlightened". That is why I said that I simply can't say anything about what goes beyond language.

 

As for the reconciliation of the following:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

 

I would say that we are creating worlds (no translating anything, which also is a response to the first post by Everything). We create a world (or worlds) made of consensus of what we call correct or normal, for example, the notion that there is an "out there" and so on. Going beyond that also leaves us to the "enlightened" theme.

 

When you say "where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether", I do not think we are thinking differently.

 

And, what is "FWIIW" ? Sorry, Spanish is my primary language and haven't seen that yet. hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole universe is said to be built upon the progression of numbers. This wisdom of numbers was called arithmesophia, and its contemplation could bring a man to understand how the universe came into existence. By looking at the relationships between numbers, we can get a glimpse into the internal machinery of the world of matter, and even glimpse beyond matter, beyond forms. The odd numbers represent the male aspect, and 1 represents the Father. 2 the female aspect, duality. This is why the Father is seen to impregnate existence into the womb of the divine mother. The plane of matter is always seen to be feminine in the scriptures. Every number has a meaning. If you examine closely, you may be able to see which gods of the old pantheon's relate to the numbers 1-9. The gods are aspects of the universe, given personalities based on how the forces they represent act in nature.

 

In other words, the relationships between numbers are there not by chance, but out of necessity. Numbers have relationships because this universe came into existence by natural principles and relationships- and numbers are bound by these natural principles because numbers exist within this universe. Numbers are the cogs and wheels that allow this divine machine to run. By relationships I mean for example why 9+9=18, and 1+8=9. 18+9 again is 27 and once again 2+7=9. Do you see this amazing property of the number 9? This is a repeating pattern. So then we must ask what it means for two numbers to be multiplied, and to be added, etc. This exists for a reason. And there is occult meaning in all of these relationships.

 

A divine science indeed, that can shed light on nature's laws. The wise philosophers of the past did not investigate arithmetic for no small reason, nor was Pythagoras only a mathematician as we learn in our schools as children.

 

As much as I would like it, I don't think those kind of patterns "are there" out of necessity, as you say. I do think is a chance thing. But I respect and value your opinion and, as I said before, I may be wrong. As et-thoughts said, it may be a topic for the enlightened to know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites