Taoist meditation

[Rocky Lionmouth]

7 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Whether Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality "interests you" or not is irrelevant - it will remain the truth of Daoist meditation even if all of life on Earth is vaporized by the thousands of nuclear weapons and 450 nuclear power plants and depleted uranium weapons developed in the last 50 years.

 

When I say Western I am referring to symmetric logic - for an overview just read math professor Ian Stewart's book "Why Beauty is Truth: A History of Symmetry." - I have corresponded with Prof. Stewart as well.

 

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

3 hours ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

 

The Weak Reality that Makes Quantum Phenomena more Natural: Novel Insights and Experiments

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Mordecai Waegell, Avshalom C. Elitzur

(Submitted on 12 Nov 2018)

Quote

While quantum reality can be probed through measurements, the Two-State-Vector formalism (TSVF) reveals a subtler reality prevailing between measurements. Under special pre- and post-selections, odd physical values emerge. This unusual picture calls for a deeper study. Instead of the common, wave-based picture of quantum mechanics, we suggest a new, particle-based perspective: Each particle possesses a definite location throughout its evolution, while some of its physical variables (characterized by deterministic operators, some of which obey nonlocal equations of motion) are carried by "mirage particles" accounting for its unique behavior. Within the time-interval between pre- and post-selection, the particle gives rise to a horde of such mirage particles, of which some can be negative. What appears to be "no-particle," known to give rise to Interaction-Free Measurement, is in fact a self-canceling pair of positive and negative mirage particles, which can be momentarily split and cancel out again. Feasible experiments can give empirical evidence for these fleeting phenomena. In this respect, the Heisenberg ontology is shown to be conceptually advantageous compared to the Schrödinger picture. We review several recent advances, discuss their foundational significance and point out possible directions for future research.

voidisyinyang

[Mudfoot]

On 2018-12-27 at 8:14 AM, voidisyinyang said:

 

OK since I can't "cut and paste" a pdf on this site - and assuming that the Westernized mass mind control readers of  this site will practice willful ignorance by not reading the pdf - I'll transcribe a quote for people - so it's right in front of their faces (unless of course they practice self-censorship).

 

 

@voidisyinyang

 

This includes me.... 

[thelerner]

5 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The Weak Reality that Makes Quantum Phenomena more Natural: Novel Insights and Experiments

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Mordecai Waegell, Avshalom C. Elitzur

(Submitted on 12 Nov 2018)

voidisyinyang

I went there and read or rather skimmed the paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/854/htm.  I don't see what it has to do with Taoist Meditation, at all.  I can see how it has to do with wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff, but not Meditation. 

[Mudfoot]

16 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

You are still "waiting" for a "clear cut" version of the "right hand up, left hand down" theory?

Just read the book! Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality! haha. No need to wait. It was written by a Daoist Immortal just for people like you.

I define clear cut differently than you, maybe because english is a second language. 

 

But you do answer the question about being understood: If it requires reference books to understand your theory you do not wish to be understood. 

 

😎 Cool 

 

 

[wandelaar]

Being understood makes one vulnerable to possibly legitimate criticism. It's much easier to pose as a genius by continually quoting scientific articles and by using scientific terms that one doesn't even understand oneself and by dropping the names of famous scientist that one claims to have corresponded with. I have noticed that ViYY makes big mistakes as soon as he writes something himself about mathematics (which I know a lot about), so he is obviously capable of posting pseudoscientific bullshit. That makes it highly doubtful that the rest of his posts would be of more value. The best option is to completely ignore it (call it "self-censorship" if you like), and to read the posts of those Bums who do have something interesting to offer and who at least make an attempt to be understood. 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by wandelaar

[JamaicanBushman]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Being understood makes one vulnerable to possibly legitimate criticism. It's much easier to pose as a genius by continually quoting scientific articles and by using scientific terms that one doesn't even understand oneself and by dropping the names of famous scientist that one claims to have corresponded with. I have noticed that ViYY makes big mistakes as soon as he writes something himself about mathematics (which I know a lot about), so he is obviously capable of posting pseudoscientific bullshit. That makes it highly doubtful that the rest of his posts would be of more value. The best option is to completely ignore it (call it "self-censorship" if you like), and to read the posts of those Bums who do have something interesting to offer and who at least make an attempt to be understood. 

 

I think voidisyinyang would appreciate if you challenged him on the mistakes you say he makes in mathematics. What mistakes in particular? Everything I’ve researched that he’s said has proved accurate. Voidisyinyang is certainly operating at a high level of complexity. This is confirmed by the fact that he has been working in a new field of study ecomusicology for some time. This is one of the markers of a high MHC (Model of Hierachical Complexity) level as explained in the listening society. 

 

We should never mock or disparage someone who finds who finds it hard to communicate ideas. This is senseless. I don’t think it’s wise to suggest he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about when you are basing that on a difficulty to understand someone. Ignorance is rarely the best option, it leads to apathy.  You have already said you are sceptical about qi as a concept.  In my mind jing is electrochemical neurohormones, qi is electromagnetism and Shen is light. I could be wrong about that. However this matches up with jing in the gut (which produces the most serotonin), qi of the heart (which produces the largest electromagnetic field) and Shen in the brain  (with the highest concentrations of biophotons). This alone leads us to acknowledge that they may have known more than we do about our bodies by looking within, as opposed to looking without. 

 

Let us be real, we are all suffering from information overload, which means we don’t do as much research into what he says because it would mean losing time doing other things. Also our attention is not operating at a maxium. In terms of your original question you could do as you normally do when it comes to meditation and visualise a light in your gut, red according to a wise mans research. Working to open your lower Dan tien will provide a foundation for strengthening the practice you already are committed to.

 

6 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

I define clear cut differently than you, maybe because english is a second language. 

 

But you do answer the question about being understood: If it requires reference books to understand your theory you do not wish to be understood. 

 

😎 Cool 

 

 

Perhaps he does wish to be understood, but only those who are truly able to understand and who truly want to. This is akin to the sages of Old writing using code names, such as swallow the red cinnabar pill. This could be mercury sulphide (not the best idea), it could also be swallowing saliva infused with properties from the centre of the lower Dan tien. The Dan tiens were called cinnabar fields, and the centre of the lowest one was red (http://www.goldenelixir.com/jindan/dantian.html) Studies show that pranayama breathing can change the chemical content of saliva

(1st

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4383272/

2nd 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1286-7

3rd
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501575/ )

 

This is also know as the Golden nectar.

 

I just gave references and as we are studying ancient esoteric (science) texts. It’s necessary for research. Let’s not be overly hard on voidisyinyang. He does good works. 

 

6 hours ago, thelerner said:

I went there and read or rather skimmed the paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/854/htm.  I don't see what it has to do with Taoist Meditation, at all.  I can see how it has to do with wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff, but not Meditation. 

From my limited understanding this paper relates to something I’ve never understood about voidisyinyangs research. Borrowing energy from the future and virtual particles. Correct me if I’m wrong on that linkage voidisyinyang. The way these mirage particles are likened to the particle-antiparticle pairs that spring from quantum vacuums makes me think I’m not too far off. Quantum vacuum fluctuations to me is a confirmation of the all (yin and yang separated) emanating from the void (which is yinyang apparently)

 

12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The Weak Reality that Makes Quantum Phenomena more Natural: Novel Insights and Experiments

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Mordecai Waegell, Avshalom C. Elitzur

(Submitted on 12 Nov 2018)

voidisyinyang

To be fair to everyone. I too have trouble understanding your blog posts and your style of communication. I liken it to the first time I read the dao de jing. I liked what I saw, and I understood very little of it. I reread and did research and joined dots and I still am. I came to understand more. I’m not even sure if I want this all to be too simplified. I don’t even know if it can be yet. I’m not even training as much as I could be. Still I keep coming back to your posts simply to prompt me to train. And to understand and be able to explain to myself and others this amazing process.  Thanks for sharing about the polyphonic singing. It led me to believe perhaps we can save the world, if we were able to transmit this felt wisdom as intellectual knowledge.

 

and thank you all for reading my first post 🙏🏾

Edited December 28, 2018 by JamaicanBushman
I was being a tad bit discourteous

[Rocky Lionmouth]

11 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The Weak Reality that Makes Quantum Phenomena more Natural: Novel Insights and Experiments

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Mordecai Waegell, Avshalom C. Elitzur

(Submitted on 12 Nov 2018)

voidisyinyang

 

There, fixed it for you.

 

Now, if you would cease and desist quoting AT me (as if it’d change the fact that your approach is spontaneously confrontative and aggressive, i wonder how you figured that strategy out) and do something constructive with your time i think it’d be fruitful for you.

This, as it is, is a waste of your obviously abundant energy.

 

I dont like putting people on the ignore list on the off chance they actually have something to contribute sometime in the future, but i might just make an exception for you, mr. My-credentials-consist-of-a-list-of-people-i’ve-exchanged-emails-with.

I’m wondering what kind of trauma you left the poor Professor Stweart with... shees.

 

Dont write me, dont quote in my direction, dont mention me and dont read my posts unless they explicitly celebrate your infallible logic and emanent godhood, but dont hold your breath for those, seriously.

 

 

[wandelaar]

Well - there's another one for my Ignore List: JamaicanBushman

 

If that isn't ViYY himself, it has to be a very faithful disciple.

[Mudfoot]

1 hour ago, JamaicanBushman said:

 

We should never mock or disparage someone who finds who finds it hard to communicate ideas.

No, but we should give feedback on the style of communiation so that he can take the chance to let it evolve. 

1 hour ago, JamaicanBushman said:

Perhaps he does wish to be understood, but only those who are truly able to understand and who truly want to. This is akin to the sages of Old writing using code names, 

Yet he is insultive when asked for clarifications, or goes of in another direction, avoiding the subject. 

Maybe that is Sage-like? 

1 hour ago, JamaicanBushman said:

 

and thank you all for reading my first post 🙏🏾

Which was very good. 

And if you become a follower of Void, and translate his posts, I will be able to partake in his research and his ideas. Because having an idea is not good enough, being able to communicate it is as important. 

[wandelaar]

5 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

And if you become a follower of Void, and translate his posts, I will be able to partake in his research and his ideas. Because having an idea is not good enough, being able to communicate it is as important. 

 

Now this suggests an interesting experiment! Some time ago I explained the complex numbers, and ViYY jumped in claiming that the commutativity of those numbers is false and that they actually are to be understood as non-commutative. Now ViYY never succeeded in pointing out any error in my explanation nor in making clear why the complex numbers should be seen as actually non-commutative despite their obvious commutativity. Now I ask JamaicanBushman to answer my question: What is wrong with the (provable) commutativity of the complex numbers?

[JamaicanBushman]

Yes I’m a follower of Voidisyinyang. Although he’s only just finding out. 

 

TL;DR when solving imaginary (Why lateral, why not invisible, not directional enough?) numbers we have to separate in a particular way.

for example: sqrt of -25 = sqrt of 25 times sqrt of -1. There has to be the sqrt of -1 to produce 5times sqrt -1. Invisible algebra.  We can’t do: sqrt of -25 = sqrt of -5 time sqrt of -5. We can see this in video3 of the series mentioned below around 3 minutes in. Also notice the times symbol used is the same in this video about non-communicative algebra. 

 

This maths is a case in point. I went to the complex number lesson thread, I got turned of by the communication style.

Luckily there was an interesting post with some interesting points early on

 

On 27/08/2018 at 3:39 PM, Lost in Translation said:

Imaginary numbers always bothered me in school so I look forward to your treatise.

 

I beleive there is a link to Taoism after looking at it and according to voidisyinyangs previous work and my new understanding. Imaginary and complex numbers are unappealing because it’s hard to ground them in reality, in my opinion. 

 

On 27/08/2018 at 4:38 PM, rideforever said:

Some "interesting" questions are :
- do humans play with their imagination / complex / irrational / unreal ideas because they have not been able to comprehend how to make progress in reality ?

- why are real numbers good ?

- what is the "spiritual" meaning usefulness purpose behind all these concepts ?

 

To which I answer: Yes; I don’t know, they are discrete and good for classical objects like apples and asteroids at a surface level of 3dimensions and; I’ll come to that in a moment but first

 

i got stuck by the time this video came up and I watch them until part 11 although I think I slept through part 9. 

On 27/08/2018 at 7:42 PM, joeblast said:

much of what's trying to be said is well detailed in a nice way by the numberphile videos "Imaginary numbers are real"

 

numberphile and mathologer are excellent channels

 

 

And from the way I understood it I began having small incomplete eureka moments. I’ve never understood this part of Voidisyinyangs work (can I just say Drew?) before but I believe I understand a little more now. I’m not a mathematician or a physicist (quantum or not) but I’m interested and like to understand, so bear with me. (Also I’m writing long posts because I get ten a day and don’t want to waste them).  This following video helped me understand non-communicative geometry.

 

It seems he answered you question early on with a Kauffman paper and a quote 

“These Majorana Fermions can be symbolized by Clif-
ford algebra generators a and b such that a [squared]
= b[squared]= 1
and ab = −ba. One can take a as the iterant corre-
sponding to a period two oscillation, and b as the
time shifting operator. Then their product ab is a
square root of minus one in a non-commutative con-
text.”

 

in terms of the problem with treating complex numbers as communicative, I Hop I’ve shown you they aren’t from early on. I may be wrong.  However in real life it seems imaginary/invisible/internal/lateral numbers deal can speak to the kinds of quantum objects such as the mirage particles ( which seem to be virtual photons ). 

 

I add internal to the list of names (for the ironically and unimagintaively, poorly named) imaginary numbers as it perhaps could relate to this internal ruler/gauge principle from the non-communicative geometry video. 

 

Interestingly that mirage particle novel insights and experiements study voidisyinyang posted talks about not only virtual photons, but also turning the light back around. A name for meditation, zen, daoist and Buddhist. 

 

Im not sure how I feel being objectified as some sort of test subject to test voidisyinyang. Although this adds to his sage factor. I also expect to be disagreed with. I’m not even sure if what I said is right. But it feels right, to my gut

 

 

[wandelaar]

@ JamaicanBushman

 

Well - whoever you are, at least it's possible to communicate with you in a way that seemed impossible with ViYY.

 

But complex numbers are much more basic than Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry. They can even be introduced as simple arrows in the Cartesian plane (as I did in the linked topic). The proof that the complex numbers are commutative is straightforward, and no amount of talk about Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry will undo the provable and well known commutativity of the complex numbers. You will have to point to errors in the construction of the complex numbers and/or in the proof of their commutativity to refute the claim that the complex numbers are commutative. It would also be nice when you would present an example of two complex number u and v such that u.v is not equal to v.u .

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by wandelaar

[JamaicanBushman]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ JamaicanBushman

 

Well - whoever you are, at least it's possible to communicate with you in a way that seemed impossible with ViYY.

 

But complex numbers are much more basic than Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry. They can even be introduced as simple arrows in the Cartesian plane (as I did in the linked topic). The proof that the complex numbers are commutative is straightforward, and no amount of talk about Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry will undo the provable and well known commutativity of the complex numbers. You will have to point to errors in the construction of the complex numbers and/or in the proof of their commutativity to refute the claim that the the complex numbers are commutative. It would also be nice when you would present an example of two complex number u and v such that u.v is not equal to v.u .

 

Once again, I don’t really like this sort of challenge because this isn’t a natural realisation I’ve come to. It’s uncomfortable, your asking me to prove something I haven’t claimed. 

 

What are the practical uses of complex numbers?

 

I’m disappointed that you haven’t commented on the prospect of the turning the light around connection, the red cinnabar connection or my partial understanding of jing, qi and Shen and their connections.  

 

This leads me to ask did you read the Kaufman paper, or my comments? You haven’t acknowledged any of what I’ve said. I believe this is a fair ask.

 

The thing is you can’t actually plot complex numbers on traditional 3 dimensional Cartesian space. One axis must include imaginary numbers, this axis, this direction is invisible to us. Isn’t it’? The i axis isn’t vertical, horizontal or depth is it? This is an honest question 

 

Did you watch the video on non communicative geometry. It states that the internal ruler/gauge principle was a trick used to simplify and explain something that was impossible to explain, a lot like invisible numbers, which are a part of complex numbers.

 

Furthermore we know that with communicative math two numbers can not multiply to produce a negative number. Can you prove that communicative maths can produce an imaginary number? 

 

Finally after me not knowing the answer but being willing to search for one I found this 

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/147166/does-my-definition-of-double-complex-noncommutative-numbers-make-any-sense

 

which leads to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

 

Which leads us back to here https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=8sAmXOOjFcKNlwSy1qmgAw&q=quartenions+eddie+oshins&oq=quartenions+eddie+oshins&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..35i304i39j33i160l2.28650.29096..29334...0.0..0.141.396.2j2......0....1.........33i21.m7RpYn2zU5g

 

 

So in that quaternions extend the complex numbers and are therefore complex numbers. Quaternions are non communicative. As shown. I’m not researching this for you any further. It’s not where I need to be on the path right now. 

 

whats a Quaternion, I don’t know, seems to be an equation that models 3D objects spin, but you should be able to tell me. 

 

Infsct you should be telling us. So can you tell me what the difference between a complex number and a Quaternion is. It seems it’s got 3 dimensions of imaginary numbers in it. Which leads me back to what is an imaginary number in real life?

 

anyway let’s get back to  voidisyinyang and see what he has to say

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by JamaicanBushman
Linking to a blog book by voidisyinyang on the topic. Edits for clarity

[wandelaar]

2 hours ago, JamaicanBushman said:

Once again, I don’t really like this sort of challenge because this isn’t  natural realisation I’ve come to. It’s uncomfortable, your asking me to prove something I haven’t claimed. 

 

You don't need to take up the challenge. You can just believe in ViYY as your sage of choice if you like to.

 

Quote

What are the practical uses of complex numbers?

 

There are many uses for the complex numbers: quantum mechanics, electrical engineering, solving algebraic equations, Laplace transforms, etc.

 

Quote

I’m disappointed that you haven’t commented on the prospect of the turning the light around connection, the red cinnabar connection or my partial understanding of jing, qi and Shen and their connections.  

 

That's another subject. I like to deal with one thing at a time.

 

Quote

This leads me to ask did you read the Kaufman paper, or my comments? You haven’t acknowledged any of what I’ve said.

 

That's all besides the point. I have read many of the links of ViYY and they fall in two categories:

 

1. Pseudoscience.

2. Legit science, but irrelevant to the claims that ViYY is making.

 

So I have stopped wasting my time on reading those links. As I already said you don't need non-commutative geometry or Clifford algebras to understand and work with the complex numbers. Needlessly bringing in such advanced subjects is only obfuscating the issue.

 

Quote

The thing is you can’t actually plot complex numbers on traditional 3 dimensional Cartesian space. One axis must include imaginary numbers, this axis, this direction is invisible to us. Isn’t it’? The i axis isn’t vertical, horizontal or depth is it?

 

Nonsense! Read my explanation.

 

Quote

Did you watch the video on non communicative geometry. It states that the internal ruler/gauge principle was a trick used to simplify and explain something that was impossible to explain, a lot like invisible numbers, which are part complex numbers.

 

Again, irrelevant. You are playing the same tricks as ViYY, continually avoiding to answer criticism by bringing in all kinds of highly advanced but irrelevant other stuff. 

 

Quote

Furthermore we know that with communicative math two numbers can not multiply to produce a negative number. Can you prove that communicative maths can produce an imaginary number? 

 

Again - Nonsense! The complex numbers are commutative. It's easy to prove. 

 

Quote

Finally after me not knowing the answer but being willing to search for one I found this 

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/147166/does-my-definition-of-double-complex-noncommutative-numbers-make-any-sense

 

which leads to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

 

Which leads us back to here https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=8sAmXOOjFcKNlwSy1qmgAw&q=quartenions+eddie+oshins&oq=quartenions+eddie+oshins&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..35i304i39j33i160l2.28650.29096..29334...0.0..0.141.396.2j2......0....1.........33i21.m7RpYn2zU5g

 

 

So in that quaternions extend the complex numbers and are therefore complex numbers. Quaternions are non communicative. As shown. I’m not researching this for you any further. It’s not where I need to be on the path right now. 

 

Indeed - the quaternions extent the complex numbers and are non-commutative. That means that the complex numbers can be interpreted as a special type of quaternions. But you are saying that the quaternions are complex numbers which is the wrong way around, for if the quaternions simply were complex numbers than they would not extend the complex numbers. 

 

Quote

whats a Quaternion, I don’t know, seems to be an equation that models 3D objects spin you should be able to tell me. 

 

Infsct you should be telling us. So can you tell me what the difference between a complex number and a Quaternion is. It seems it’s got 3 dimensions of imaginary numbers in it. Which leads me back to what is an imaginary number in real life?

 

Quaternions are an extension of the complex numbers, which means that all complex numbers can be considered as being quaternions but not all quaternions can be considered as being complex numbers. The quaternions have three different "imaginary units". For some pairs of quaternions u and v (for instance when u en v are complex numbers) we have u.v = v.u, and for some other pairs of quaternions u and v we have u.v ≠ v.u. The quaternions are called non-commutative because the commutative law doesn't hold for all pairs of quaternions (although it does hold for some). So again - even the example of the quaternions only obfuscates the issue, and doesn't prove that the complex numbers are non-commutative.

 

Quote

anyway let’s get back to  voidisyinyang and see what he has to say

 

 

Nice that you found your sage of choice in ViYY. I will not bother you any further, as you are not interested in the mathematical facts of the matter.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by wandelaar

[voidisyinyang]

On 12/27/2018 at 12:48 AM, Mudfoot said:

Isn't that the problem? 

Hasn't quite a few persons, including me, stated that it is really difficult to se what you are discussing? 

In your posts you combine undefined term with another undefined term, building chains that few seems to be able to follow. 

The question is, do you want to be understood? Because I would like to understand your chain of thought. 

Wang Mu have a list of code words, you might want to look at it and cut back to the basic words most here are familiar with and a clearer description on how you interpret the transformations happening. 

This would include a cut-back on the physics, since I doubt most spammers here are up to date. 

 

In other words, keep it simple so we can enjoy your posts. 

 

You do a Western - nonwestern distinction in your posts, but sometimes I feel that is just an excuse for not writing in an accessible manner. 

 

You do post here to be read and understood? 

 

Or....? 

 

So I appreciate the discussion about the "ideas" I have posted on this forum.

Now my original answer to this above quote was music theory and then I referred to Pregadio pointing out that Daoist alchemy meditation is based on non-western music theory.

 

So then the discussion switched over to math.  So people think I am bragging about my correspondence with professors. Yes I am bragging but only because of the absurdity of it - and by "absurd" - I mean the "surd" - or going out of the "unutterable" - the "unheard" - the Alogon of irrational numbers. It is quite clear and well proven by math professor Luigi Borzacchini that Western math originates from music theory! This, of course got covered up.

 

So the claim then being made is that noncommutative "geometry" is too advanced and I'm just "hiding" behind it without really understanding it, etc.

 

OK so let's go back to the very origins of Western math from music theory.

 

I looked at the links posted - by the person who has given a sympathetic reading to the information I've posted.

I've read the comments about those links.

Consider this comment:

 

Quote

When you get into the nitty gritty you are forced to become really precise about what counts as a "number." Consider three properties that both the real numbers and the complex numbers have:

1. For every number x ≠ 0 there is another number y such that x·y = 1 (i.e., every non-zero number has a reciprocal)

2. For all numbers x,y,z we have x·(y·z) = (x·y)·z (this is called the "associative property")

3. For all numbers x,y we have x·y = y·z (this is called the "commutative property")

 

Now keep in mind again the WEstern math is from music theory. Look at number 1.

Let's say to be reciprocal - we are dealing actually with a Logos (a ratio) of time and frequency.

So let's say we have x = 3/2 and y = 2/3. Therefore we have a reciprocity that equals 1.

Now let's consider the empirical truth of music theory, the secret origin of Western math.

As I have pointed out, if C is 1 (as is common in music theory - the root tonic is C) then C is also 2 since it's the same pitch that we visualize as being a "doubling" of frequency. So far so good.

But this is where things get interesting.

For 3 then as 3/2 as X, the 3 is actually G while for 3 as 2/3 as Y, then the 3 is actually F.

So the non-commutative logic is actually BEFORE quaternions - it is inherent to number have a "hidden dimension" - to quote the above video. But more so - Western math defines dimension as a geometry, assuming that irrational magnitudes are logically valid.

But quantum physics changed all that - what was rediscovered is the new foundation of science as "time-frequency uncertainty."

That "uncertainty" is due to the noncommutative "measurement problem" of the linear operator of time to frequency.

So the uncertainty is not "limited" to the quantum realm - it is based on the inherent logic of the math itself.

And so what we are discovering with noncommutative phase logic - is that, as math professor Alain Connes points out, when there is a zero point in geometry there is a hidden noncommutative time-frequency to that zero point of geometry. The frequency-time is primary or what math professor Louis Kauffman calls "primordial time" that is synchronizing reality. This was also discovered by de Broglie as the Law of Phase Harmony.

O.K. so that also changes what "1" means - which brings us back to what is a square root "really." It is "absurd" - in the sense that time is literally the future and past overlapping. We can logically infer it but we can not OBSERVE it. We can "listen" to it but we can not SEE it.

 

OK so to make my post more "fancy" I'll provide a quote from math prof. Louis Kauffman (yes with whom I've corresponded). Maybe I didn't post this yet here - maybe I did?

 

.

Quote

..All of this points out how the complex numbers, as we have previously examined them, live naturally in the context of the non-commutative algebras of iterants and matrices.... A natural non-commutative algebra arises directly from articulation of discrete process and can be regarded as essential information in a Fermion. It is natural to compare this algebra structure with algebra of creation and annihilation operators that  occur in quantum field theory. ..."In the notion of time there is an inherent clock and an inherent shift of phase that enables a synchrony, a precise dynamic beneath the apparent dynamic of the observed process....By starting with a discrete time series of positions, one has immediately a non-commutativity of observations, since the measurement of velocity involves the tick of the clock and the measurement of position does not demand the tick of the clock....In this sense, i [square root of negative one] is identical in concept to a primordial time."

 

So now I'll repeat the quote with my emphasis added:

Quote

.All of this points out how the complex numbers, as we have previously examined them, live naturally in the context of the non-commutative algebras of iterants and matrices.... A natural non-commutative algebra arises directly from articulation of discrete process and can be regarded as essential information in a Fermion. It is natural to compare this algebra structure with algebra of creation and annihilation operators that  occur in quantum field theory. ..."In the notion of time there is an inherent clock and an inherent shift of phase that enables a synchrony, a precise dynamic beneath the apparent dynamic of the observed process....By starting with a discrete time series of positions, one has immediately a non-commutativity of observations, since the measurement of velocity involves the tick of the clock and the measurement of position does not demand the tick of the clock....In this sense, i [square root of negative one] is identical in concept to a primordial time."

 

OK now let's go back to that original comment I quoted - and we will continue with the comment - to one of the videos linked above:

 

Quote

If we require that our numbers have properties (1), (2), and (3) then the complex numbers are as far as you can go. If we require that our numbers only have properties (1) and (2) then you can create a new set of "4-dimensional" numbers called the quaternions. With the quaternions, multiplication isn't commutative, i.e., it's not always the case that x·y = y·x for two quaternions x,y. The quaternions are as far as you can go if we insist out numbers respect (1) and (2), but not necessarily (3).

We can see now that this "normal" definition of math is logically no longer valid.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by voidisyinyang

[wandelaar]

@ ViYY

 

Complete bullshit. As usual. One big waste of time and energy. I see no sign whatever that you are able to learn from the mistakes that have been pointed out by me and others. But I will have to stop now, or I will end as a grumpy old man myself. So I'm switching back to IGNORE.

[voidisyinyang]

OK so a thread on Daoist Meditation?

I document that Daoist meditation IS non-western music theory!

I tell people to read the Daoist Meditation literature.

Yes it is true that non-western music is NOT Western science.

It's also true that Western science originates from non-western music theory.

Also it's true that Western science is starting to realize this non-western music origin as also being the "end point" of Western science.

 

For example - in terms of meditation we confront the problem of "consciousness" in the West - it is usually called the Hard Problem based on what is qualia.

As I blogged recently - the problem of "qualia" which is really a problem of logical identity - is solved by non-western music theory. Science calls this the http://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-phase-between-eigenstates-secrets.html

"Asymmetry Proof."

 

So we want to think that science is "objective" and it measures an "external reality" but actually science is based on left-brain dominance with right hand dominance.

 

Non-western music is right brain /left hand dominance just as ecology relies on left-handed amino acids and right brain dominance.

So Western science "works" unless you consider the ecological and social justice crisis created by the "entropy" math.

It might seem childish to turn to music theory as the "answer" to science and yet Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes has done just that!!

So he corroborated my music theory "complementary opposites" logic claim that I discovered on my own while in high school. I have compiled quotes from Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes regarding music theory (Keep in mind that no other Western music-math analysis has realized this noncommutative logic secret of music theory!!). Quite amazing.

 

Quote

“And it could be formalized by music….I think we might succeed in this way to educate the human mind to deal with polyphonic situations in which several voices coexist, in which several states coexist, whereas our ordinary logical allows room for only one. Finally, we come back to the problem of adaptation, which has to be resolved in order for us to understand quantum correlation and interrelation which we discussed earlier, and which are fundamentally schizoid in nature. It is clear that logic will evolve in parallel with the development of quantum computers, just as it evolved with computer science. That will no doubt enable us to cross new borders and to better integrate the mathematical formalism of the quantum world into our metaphysical system....

 

When Riemann wrote his essay on the foundations of geometry, he was incredibly careful. He said his ideas might not apply in the very small. Why? He said that the notion of a solid body of a ray of light doesn't make sense in the very small. So he was incredibly smart. His idea, I have never been able to understand his intuition...But however he wrote down explicitly that the geometry of space, of spacetime, should be encapsulated, should be given by the forces which hold the space together. Now it turns out this is exactly what we give here...One day I understood the following: That we are born in quantum mechanics. We can not deny that... Quantum mechanics has been verified. The superposition principle has been verified. The spin system is really a sphere. This has been verified. This has been checked so many times. That we can not say that Nature is classical. No. Nature is quantum.

 

Nature is very quantum. From this quantum stuff, we have to understand our vision, our very classical, because of natural selection way of seeing things can emerge. It's very very difficult of course.  ...Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?....Our view of the spacetime is only an approximation, not the finite points, it's not good for inflation. But the inverse space of spinors is finite dimensional. Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous....  It is only because one drops commutativity that variables with a continuous range can coexist with variables with a countable range....

 

What is a parameter? The parameter is time...If you stay in the classical world, you can not have a good set up for variables. Because variables with a continuous range can not coexist with variables of discrete range. When you think more, you find out there is a perfect answer. And this answer is coming from quantum mechanics....The real variability in the world is exactly is where are you in the spectrum [frequency] of this variable or operator. And what is quite amazing is that in this work that I did at the very beginning of my mathematical studies, the amazing fact is that exactly time is emerging from the noncommutivity. You think that these variables do not commute, first of all it is that they don't commute so you can have the discrete variable that coexists with the continuous variable. What you find out after awhile is that the origin of time is probably quantum mechanical and its coming from the fact that thanks to noncommutativity ONLY that one can write the time evolution of a system, in temperature, in heat bath, the time evolution is really coming from the noncommutativity of the variables....

 

You really are in a different world, then the world of geometry, which we all like because we all like to draw pictures and think in a geometric manner. So what I am going to explain is a very strange way to think about geometry, from this point of view, which is quite different from drawing on the blackboard...I will start by asking an extremely simple question, which of course has a geometrical origin. I don't think there can be a simpler question. Where are we?....The mathematical question, what we want, to say where we are and this has two parts: What is our universe? What is the geometric space in which we are? And in which point in this universe we are. We can not answer the 2nd question without answering the first question, of course....You have to be able to tell the geometric space in an invariant manner....These invariants are refinements of the idea of the diameter. The inverse of the diameter of the space is related to the first Eigenoperator, capturing the vibrations of the space; the way you can hear the music of shapes...which would be its scale in the musical sense; this shape will have a certain number of notes, these notes will be given by the frequency and form the basic scale, at which the geometric object is vibrating....The scale of a geometric shape is actually not enough....

 

However what emerges, if you know not only the various frequencies but also the chords, and the point will correspond to the chords. Then you know the complete thing....It's a rather delicate thing....There is a very strange mathematical fact...If you take manifolds of the same dimension, which are extremely different...the inverse space of the spinor doesn't distinguish between two manifolds. The Dirac Operator itself has a scale, so it's a spectrum [frequency]. And the only thing you need to know...is the relative position of the algebra...the Eigenfunctions of the Dirac Operator....a "universal scaling system," manifests itself in acoustic systems....There is something even simpler which is what happens with a single string. If we take the most elementary shape, which is the interval, what will happen when we make it vibrate, of course with the end points fixed, it will vibrate in a very extremely simple manner. Each of these will produce a sound...When you look at the eigenfunctions of the disk, at first you don't see a shape but when you look at very higher frequencies you see a parabola. If you want the dimension of the shape you are looking at, it is by the growth of these eigenvariables. When talking about a string it's a straight line. When looking at a two dimensional object you can tell that because the eigenspectrum is a parabola....

 

They are isospectral [frequency with the same area], even though they are geometrically different....when you take the square root of these numbers, they are the same [frequency] spectrum but they don't have the same chords. There are three types of notes which are different....What do I mean by possible chords? I mean now that you have eigenfunctions, coming from the drawing of the disk or square [triangle, etc.]. If you look at a point and you look at the eigenfunction, you can look at the value of the eigenfunction at this point.... The point [zero in space] makes a chord between two notes. When the value of the two eigenfunctions [2, 3, infinity] will be non-zero. ...The corresponding eigenfunctions only leave you one of the two pieces; so if there is is one in the piece, it is zero on the other piece and if it is non-zero in the piece it is zero there...You understand the finite invariant which is behind the scenes which is allowing you to recover the geometry from the spectrum....Our notion of point will emerge, a correlation of different frequencies...The space will be given by the scale. The music of the space will be done by the various chords. It's not enough to give the scale. You also have to give which chords are possible....The only thing that matters when you have these sequences are the ratios, the ear is only sensitive to the ratio, not to the additivity...multiplication by 2 of the frequency and transposition, normally the simplest way is multiplication by 3...2 to the power of 19 is almost 3 to the power of 12....

 

You see what we are after....it should be a shape, it's spectrum looks like that...We can draw this spectrum...what do you get? It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a straight line. It goes up exponentially fast...What is the dimension of this space?...It's much much smaller. It's zero...It's smaller than any positive.... Musical shape has geometric dimension zero... You think you are in bad shape because all the shapes we know ...but this is ignoring the noncommutative work. This is ignoring quantum groups. There is a beautiful answer to that, which is the quantum sphere... .There is a quantum sphere with a geometric dimension of zero...I have made a keyboard [from the quantum sphere]....This would be a musical instrument that would never get out of tune....It's purely spectral....The spectrum of the Dirac Operator...space is not simply a manifold but multiplied by a noncommutative finite space......It is precisely the irrationality of log(3)/ log(2) which is responsible for the noncommutative [complementary opposites as yin/yang] nature of the quotient corresponding to the three places {2, 3,∞}.  The formula is in sub-space....Geometry would no longer be dependent on coordinates, it would be spectral...

 

The thing which is very unpleasant in this formula is the square root...especially for space with a meter....So there is a solution to this problem of the square root, which was found by Paul Dirac....It's not really Paul Dirac, it is Hamilton who found it first...the quaternions is the Dirac Operator....Replace the geometric space, by the algebra and the line element...for physicists this thing has a meaning, a propagator for the Dirac Operator. So it's the inverse of the Dirac Operator.... You don't lose anything. You can recover the distance from two points, in a different manner....but by sending a wave from point A to point B with a constraint on the vibration of the wave, can not vibrate faster than 1; because what I ask is the commutator of the Dirac Operator is less than 1...It no longer requires that the space is connected, it works for discrete space. It no longer requires that the space is commutative, because it works for noncommutative space....the algebra of coordinates depends very little on the actual structure and the line element is very important. What's really important is there interaction [the noncommutative chord]. When you let them interact in the same space then everything happens....

 

You should never think of this finite space as being a commutative space. You have matrices which are given by a noncommutative space...To have a geometry you need to have an inverse space and a Dirac Operator...The inverse space of the finite space is 5 dimensional....What emerges is finite space...it's related to mathematics and related to the fact that there is behind the scene, when I talk about the Dirac Operator, there is a square root, and this square root, when you take a square root there is an ambiguity. And the ambiguity that is there is coming from the spin structure.... We get this formula by counting the number of the variables of the line element that are bigger than the Planck Length. We just count and get an integer....  There is a fine structure in spacetime, exactly as there is a fine structure in spectrals [frequencies]....Geometry is born in quantum space; it is invariant because it is observer dependent....

 

Our brain is an incredible ...perceives things in momentum space of the photons we receive and manufactures a mental picture. Which is geometric. But what I am telling you is that I think ...that the fundamental thing is spectral [frequency]....And somehow in order to think we have to do this enormous Fourier Transform...not for functions but a Fourier Transform on geometry. By talking about the "music of shapes" is really a fourier transform of shape and the fact that we have to do it in reverse. This is a function that the brain does amazingly well, because we think geometrically....The quantum observables do no commute; the phase space of a microscopic system is actually a noncommutative space and that is what is behind the scenes all the time. They way I understand it is that some physical laws are so robust, is that if I understand it correctly, there is a marvelous mathematical structure that is underneath the law, not a value of a number, but a mathematical structure....A fascinating aspect of music...is that it allows one to develop further one's perception of the passing of time. This needs to be understood much better. Why is time passing? Or better: Why do we have the impression that time is passes? Because we are immersed in the heat bath of the 3K radiation from the Big Bang?...time emerges from noncommutativity....

 

What about the relation with music? One finds quickly that music is best based on the scale (spectrum) which consists of all positive integer powers qn for the real number q=2 to the 12th∼3 to the 19th. Due to the exponential growth of this spectrum, it cannot correspond to a familiar shape but to an object of dimension less than any strictly positive number. As explained in the talk, there is a beautiful space which has the correct spectrum: the quantum sphere of Poddles, Dabrowski, Sitarz, Brain, Landi et all. ...  We experiment in the talk with this spectrum and show how well suited it is for playing music. The new geometry  which encodes such new spaces, is then introduced in its spectral form, it is noncommutative geometry, which is then confronted with physics.

   Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes,

[vonkrankenhaus]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

time emerges from noncommutativity....

 

Taoism understands this as the fundamental asymmetry of YinYang.

 

Most people see TaiJiTu and assume YinYang is symmetrical and "reversible" like "mirror images".

 

But look at one basic polarity - Light/Dark.

 

Light is movement, vibration. Dark is not the "inverse" of that. 

 

Dark is the "absence" of that.

 

Same way, the upper part of body is not a "reflection" of the bottom half.

 

If YinYang polarities were symmetrical, they would "cancel out", preventing the existence of the "manifested" or "physical" Universe.

 

So if we look at electron spin or difference between "matter" and "anti-matter", it is this asymmetry that allows for Matter to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

8 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

Taoism understands this as the fundamental asymmetry of YinYang.

 

Most people see TaiJiTu and assume YinYang is symmetrical and "reversible" like "mirror images".

 

But look at one basic polarity - Light/Dark.

 

Light is movement, vibration. Dark is not the "inverse" of that. 

 

Dark is the "absence" of that.

 

Same way, the upper part of body is not a "reflection" of the bottom half.

 

If YinYang polarities were symmetrical, they would "cancel out", preventing the existence of the "manifested" or "physical" Universe.

 

So if we look at electron spin or difference between "matter" and "anti-matter", it is this asymmetry that allows for Matter to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

 

 

And so then to return back to your battery analogy - with the asymmetry - we get the Flywheel Effect as the Lower Tan tien (Dantian).

I just did a blog post on this.

https://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-flywheel-effect-in-nonwestern.html

[vonkrankenhaus]

27 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

blog post

I will surely look at Tantien part later, but I saw this right off, and below I try to apply understanding of Taoism. Maybe not perfect match or translation, and is a "simplification", but I think is very close to the same things:

 

"As for music theory - it is very simple. The root tonic is the first note that you hear and it naturally has harmonics as the natural numbers so, 1, 2, 3 in the Dao refers actually to music harmonics. The trick is that the octave is the same "pitch" as the first note - and so you double the frequency."

So, aside of Music theory, which is good explanation, and then looking at Taoist "Cosmology" there is -- One exhibits Two – Polarity. Still “One”, but allowing or explaining “Movement”, which is between two poles of “One”. Not a paradox, but the basis for “Qi”. Qi is movement between the poles of a polarity. “One” HAS polarity, and so Movement – without there being a physical “Two” objects necessary.


"But frequency is inverse to TIME and you can not see time. The West assumes a visual measurement of frequency as wavelength and then tries to make it a symmetric geometry lining up with the 3. The 3 in Daoism is also called the Single Perfect Yang because as the subharmonic it is 2/3 as C to F, a Perfect Fifth while as the overtone harmonic it is 3/2 as C to G. So you have G=3=F at the same time. This means that the 3 is nonlocal - in two different places at the same time as the future and the past, that overlaps over the one."

 

That is “Qi” – non-local, perfect Yang is perfect Movement. In human life, this is also the Child. In the case of each, “you can not see time”.

 

 

"To try to line up the 3 with the 1 then you "double" the subharmonic so that instead of 2/3 now there is 4/3. But if you are using 3 as the denominator that means you CHANGED what the "one" was as the root tonic! Therefore the root tonic has a geometric dimension of zero that can not be seen but it can be listened to - as the 5th dimension. That is the secret of the Dao. "

 

This is the Movement shown in the completely non-moving TaiJiTu

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[vonkrankenhaus]

 

"Concerning matter we have all been wrong. What we have called matter is energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter. All matter beings vibrate at specific rates and everything has its own Melody. The musical nature of nuclear matter from atoms to galaxies is now finally being recognized by science."

~ Albert Einstein

 

This also shows asymmetry of YinYang.

 

Energy is Qi. 

 

Qi is Movement between poles of any polarity.

 

This means all Movement is Yang.

 

Matter is Yin. 

 

WuJi is no Matter and no Energy - No Polarity.

 

YinYang appears in the One.

 

One HAS or EXHIBITS YinYang, or "Polarity".

 

The first Movement defines the Stasis it arose from.

 

Before that is WuJi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

"Concerning matter we have all been wrong. What we have called matter is energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter. All matter beings vibrate at specific rates and everything has its own Melody. The musical nature of nuclear matter from atoms to galaxies is now finally being recognized by science."

~ Albert Einstein

 

Did Einstein really say that? I did a quick search on the internet, and it looks like the "quote" only appears on New Age and alternative medicine sites. Do you have any source for the authenticity of the quote?

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by wandelaar

[vonkrankenhaus]

59 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Did Einstein really say that?

 

 

I think it very hard to actually verify MOST quotes, from Einstein or anyone.

 

Unless you know them.

 

 

But he does say essentially the same thing himself, in-person,  in this video above.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[wandelaar]

41 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

I think it very hard to actually verify MOST quotes, from Einstein or anyone.

 

Unless you know them.

 

It's foolish to simply copy a supposed quote from Einstein from New Age sites when no source for the quote is mentioned. Besides there actually is a large book of quotations from Einstein. See here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Quotable-Einstein-Albert/dp/0691160147

 

Einstein has also written a lot, so it shouldn't be difficult to mention at least some source if the quote represents what Einstein thought about it.

 

 

Quote

 

 

But he does say essentially the same thing himself, in-person,  in this video above.

 

No - he doesn't. He only talks about the well known formula E = mc² , but says nothing about "energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses". The latter is typical New Age speak. But maybe you can point me to the exact time in the video where Einstein speaks about "energy whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses" ?

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by wandelaar