Quantum Mechanics

[Nikolai1]

There comes a point in our intellectual development where rationalism and empricism are seen as the same thing.  Or rather that we see that maths can be viewed either as the underlying structure of reality, or, as a language which we impose upon reality, shoehorning reality in the process.

 

From such a perspective it becomes very important that the validity of  Dreambliss's view is fully recognised - because all the prestigious thinkers tend to view maths as something very special and important, which it isn't.

 

We use maths and find it useful in one moment; in the next we see that those who take it too seriously are on a dark and lost trajectory (one only has to read a thinker like Stephen Hawkings to see how he is lost in a dark morass of meaningless metaphysics.  His interest in the Black Hole is itself, an interesting symbol of his own thought processes if he could only see that.)

 

To take sides on the question of maths, is the error.  We have to stand aloof, notice when it shall be useful...and then drop it like a hot potato when it is not.  Maths is the truth of no-truth.

[Karl]

I also don't agree to the view represented by this video. It's very reductionist: Living beings are nothing but a bunch of particles, particles are nothing but a bunch of numbers...

 

But neither do I agree to the view that numbers are human constructs. To the ancient occult philosophers like Pythagoras and Plato, numbers were Archetypes: Divine ideas. And if you study sacred sites like the pyramids of Giza, you can't help being deeply impressed by the advanced mathematical knowledge they incorporate.

 

The problem is not mathematics per say, but the uninspired, dry and completely profane ways in which it is being used and taught by most academics nowadays. But maybe Donald will help us to put things in perspective...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVTPwPh7ioU

 

You can't do any serious physics without math. The reason math works so well describing the physical world is because geometry and algebra are not human inventions but expressions of the noetic level of reality. Once science comes to understand this (anew), it will have taken a great step in its transformation from a materialistic to a spiritual view of the world.

 

It's just another form of intrincisism. Pythagoras and Plato believed it, but they were wrong. Even Aristotle got caught up in it, but at least his methodology survived so we can finally put intricisist numerology in the bin of history.

 

Geometry and algebra are human inventions. You have it back assward. That ratios are existent does not preclude them from operating independently of any conscious knowledge of them. An exact circle exists only in a mathematical framework, but not so in nature. A pleasing aspect of the Golden ratio exists in nature and we relate to it. That complex form follows a pattern says nothing about human scale mathematics, we just have the conscious ability to describe the concept. Maths says bog all about human consciousness. We could draw a circle before we knew any maths about the circle. We designed steam engines before we understood thermodynamics. The maths described things after the event, where it was prior to the event it was already from well understood concepts. Maths has developed to describe more things and new maths is being integrated all the time.

[Karl]

There comes a point in our intellectual development where rationalism and empricism are seen as the same thing.  Or rather that we see that maths can be viewed either as the underlying structure of reality, or, as a language which we impose upon reality, shoehorning reality in the process.

 

From such a perspective it becomes very important that the validity of  Dreambliss's view is fully recognised - because all the prestigious thinkers tend to view maths as something very special and important, which it isn't.

 

We use maths and find it useful in one moment; in the next we see that those who take it too seriously are on a dark and lost trajectory (one only has to read a thinker like Stephen Hawkings to see how he is lost in a dark morass of meaningless metaphysics.  His interest in the Black Hole is itself, an interesting symbol of his own thought processes if he could only see that.)

 

To take sides on the question of maths, is the error.  We have to stand aloof, notice when it shall be useful...and then drop it like a hot potato when it is not.  Maths is the truth of no-truth.

 

But you will go the sophist way and say that nothing at all can be truly known to exist, that it is all a conscious delusional manifestation. You see world of muscle as seen through the eyes of the mystic. :-)

 

If I could get you to see that it is equally neither, I could rest easy :-)

 

 

[Nikolai1]

But you will go the sophist way and say that nothing at all can be truly known to exist, that it is all a conscious delusional manifestation. 

I cannot express in words what my Way is. When I do the math, the math is the truth and the only truth.

[Karl]

I cannot express in words what my Way is. When I do the math, the math is the truth and the only truth.

 

Yes. That is true and you aren't asserting that the world is one composed of Pythagorean philosophical divine numbers. That is the mysticism of muscle. Yours is the mysticism of spirit.

 

Have a read of Rands statement on the subject of both: (I'm just copying and pasting here as its pointless doing otherwise )

 

 

Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle

 

¶

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

 

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

 

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.

 

For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 138

 

¶

The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.

 

They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present.

 

For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 148

 

¶

What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit. The first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit.

[Brian]

 

But I can see the value of math in describing certain things. Trying to write in words some complex physics equation would probably be a lot clunkier and less elegant than e=MC²

What does E=mc² mean?

[Nikolai1]

I recognise the distinction and have often talked of it myself. But I am neither.

[Karl]

I recognise the distinction and have often talked of it myself. But I am neither.

 

I'm not keen to drag up quotes, but in our previous conversations you did strap yourself firmly to the side of a spirit mystic.

 

Firstly you do believe in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of existence ?

You don't believe in an empiricist reality, or materialism ?

You have mentioned surrender to God/a higher spiritual knowing (which includes the Dao of which nothing can be said and only implied ) ?

 

Would that be a fair summing up ?

 

Now, I have found that Mystics of spirit will often shift to Mystics of muscle if an argument is causing them to rethink. The opposite is also true. There is a sliding scale from intrincisism to subjectivism and it's often a gratuitous mix of both. One supports the other because-as rand points out- they are really the same thing from two different perspectives.

 

Let's grant that your argument and philosophy is valid, mysticism is valid, so that you aren't forced into having to defend your position. Does the above get close to where you are, or am I so far off that these descriptions are unrecognisable ?

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

What does E=mc² mean?

 

I have a horrible feeling this is like a game show trap where a klaxon sounds to signal abject failure :-) (knowing your bias to high end physics I shall throw myself in to the trap like a lemming off a cliff)

 

Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared ?

 

And all those parts are conceptual words with absolutely defined quantities and meanings.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Karl- so far off its unrecognisable I'm afraid! When someone is wrong to argue white we must argue black. But that does mean that black is our truth.

[Brian]

I have a horrible feeling this is like a game show trap where a klaxon sounds to signal abject failure :-) (knowing your bias to high end physics I shall throw myself in to the trap like a lemming off a cliff)Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared ? And all those parts are conceptual words with absolutely defined quantities and meanings.

That's just reading the equation, like saying "2+2=4 means two plus two equals four."

 

What is the significance of the statement?

 

EDIT: I'm really hoping DB will take a shot since he introduced it as an example.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Brian

[Karl]

Karl- so far off its unrecognisable I'm afraid! When someone is wrong to argue white we must argue black. But that does mean that black is our truth.

No it doesn't. That would be a logical fallacy, so

 

OK give me a clue. You don't adhere to a philosophy of Tao, or God, materialism or the primacy of consciousness, but some other philosophy ? I can accept that, as objectivism doesn't follow those philosophies either, but, if your philosophy is neither objectivist, intrincisist or subjectivist I'm stymied to what it is.

 

I can clearly interpret and lay out my own. The axioms it depends on and the primacy of existence, identity and conscious identification of existence, but of your own I appear to know nothing at all.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

That's just reading the equation, like saying "2+2=4 means two plus two equals four."

What is the significance of the statement?

EDIT: I'm really hoping DB will take a shot since he introduced it as an example.

 

Well I do know, but I don't know what you are getting at and as its aimed at DB I shall zip me gob. :-)

[Michael Sternbach]

It's just another form of intrincisism. Pythagoras and Plato believed it, but they were wrong. Even Aristotle got caught up in it, but at least his methodology survived so we can finally put intricisist numerology in the bin of history.

That is just your opinion. I work with numerology all the time.

 

For instance, the Trump cards of the Tarot are Archetypes that are expressing the character of the numbers attached to them. Thus, from someone's date of birth, it is possible to deduce the numbers/cards that are describing them best. The same can be done for a particular year of their life or, combining two dates of birth, a relationship they have. When I do this for people, they are frequently astonished how accurately this describes them.

 

But since there is no hard evidence, I have no hope (and actually, no wish) to convince you of the metaphysical reality of the numbers.

[Karl]

That is just your opinion. I work with numerology all the time.

For instance, the Trump cards of the Tarot are Archetypes that are expressing the character of the numbers attached to them. Thus, from someone's date of birth, it is possible to deduce the numbers/cards that are describing them best. The same can be done for a particular year of their life or, combining two dates of birth, a relationship they have. When I do this for people, they are frequently astonished how accurately this describes them.

But since there is no hard evidence, I have no hope (and actually, no wish) to convince you of the metaphysical reality of the numbers.

 

Uh huh. ;-)

Well I will refrain from disparaging your supernatural powers of prescience.

[Nikolai1]

The number is a symbol. But it is also no mere symbol but a living reality with its own place in the Tao. The number appears in our life like the daffodil appears in the spring. This latter sense is how the numerologist understands the number and there is a great deal of wisdom in it.

[Michael Sternbach]

There comes a point in our intellectual development where rationalism and empricism are seen as the same thing.  Or rather that we see that maths can be viewed either as the underlying structure of reality, or, as a language which we impose upon reality, shoehorning reality in the process.

 

From such a perspective it becomes very important that the validity of  Dreambliss's view is fully recognised - because all the prestigious thinkers tend to view maths as something very special and important, which it isn't.

 

We use maths and find it useful in one moment; in the next we see that those who take it too seriously are on a dark and lost trajectory (one only has to read a thinker like Stephen Hawkings to see how he is lost in a dark morass of meaningless metaphysics.  His interest in the Black Hole is itself, an interesting symbol of his own thought processes if he could only see that.)

 

To take sides on the question of maths, is the error.  We have to stand aloof, notice when it shall be useful...and then drop it like a hot potato when it is not.  Maths is the truth of no-truth.

 

The "idealistic" view and the empirical view can also be understood as Platonism and Aristotelism, respectively.

 

Both are valid, as you say. Just like a particle can also appear as a wave.

 

And I agree with you that the mathematical way of describing things is not always appropriate or even possible. At other times (as Dreambliss mentioned), it is the most simple way to describe something, especially in Physics (and that's what we are talking about here, right?).

 

To be fair, I would like to mention that the great experimental physicist Michael Faraday had little mathematical knowledge. But his discoveries were translated into mathematical language later by James Clerk Maxwell.

 

What about Nikola Tesla? He was solving most complex differential calculations - in his head!

[Nungali]

Yeah, I found the juxtaposition of that post with the opening post quite ironic.

 

"Let's talk in depth about sewing but don't waste my time with any language involving needles, bobbins, thread, fabric or stitches..."

 

 

Yes, I found that comment rather ridiculous .....  seeings most of the tech in my life was developed and refined with mathematics.

 

However the idea one can pass through a wall because atoms are mostly 'not there' may indeed be a mental masterbation. 

 

or ... maybe one has to be masturbating as  they try to walk through the wall ?

[Nungali]

How do you define love（banana)from quantum physics?

 

 

Is this really the place to talk about love bananas  ?   

[Nungali]

Michael Sternbach was born in the Chinese year of the rooster.

 

 

Ohhhh ....   we can tell       

 

 

 

[Nungali]

It's not the first time you come across as somewhat stiff.

 

 

ewwww .     

 

, we have to remove that  'come across'  euphemism from our lingo  ! 

[Nungali]

But I can see the value of math in describing certain things. Trying to write in words some complex physics equation would probably be a lot clunkier and less elegant than e=MC²

 

I prefer words ;

 

What was our trust, we trust not,

   What was our faith, we doubt;

Whether we must or not

   We may debate about.

The soul, perhaps, is a gust of gas

   And wrong is a form of right-

But we know that Energy equals Mass

   By the Square of the Speed of Light.

 

What we have known, we know not,

   What we have proved, abjure.

Life is a tangled bowknot,

   But one thing still is sure.

Come, little lad; come, little lass,

   Your docile creed recite:

"We know that Energy equals Mass

   By the Square of the Speed of Light."

 

 

Morris Bishop.

[liminal_luke]

I suspect that a sufficiently skilled person could describe the experience of a banana with either language or mathematics. Maybe not perfectly, but good enough, as they say, for government work.

 

Liminal

Edited February 5, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Nungali]

What does E=mc² mean?

 

it means ;   if a large amount of energy can be released  from a small amount of matter, like in a nuclear warhead (which does not even use all the energy in the matter involved ) .... then if you could imagine all the matter in the Universe, and release the energy from within that .... into a big sound light and heat explosion....  

 

thats how much energy God used to create the Universe 

 

[DreamBliss]

That's just reading the equation, like saying "2+2=4 means two plus two equals four."

 

What is the significance of the statement?

 

EDIT: I'm really hoping DB will take a shot since he introduced it as an example.