
Post by laughter on Sept 28, 2019 10:58:48 GMT 5
Three things you might find interesting: (1) Bertrand Russel's "paradox" (he was, btw, a contemporary and at one point associate of J.K.'Murt) (2) Goedel's incompleteness theorem and (3) The way mathematics is currently formalized, not all infinities are the same."Some infinities are bigger than other infinities..." Indubitably. . What would the Physicists do without them??



Post by Reefs on Sept 28, 2019 11:23:21 GMT 5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality? There are scientists on both sides. I used to converse on Beliefnet some before it ended. There was a guy in the science section who said you can't even find a 2 anywhere in the universe. So he considered all math to be human conceived abstractions. But some mathematicians are Platonist. Physicist John Wheeler concluded, or theorized at least, information is the most fundamental aspect of the universe. He encapsulated this as "It from bit". Mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was a Platonist. Physicist Max Tegmark wrote a book and appeared on the TV program Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman describing how he believed everything is made of math. I read his very good book, Our Mathematical Universe. I tried to find a video clip. This magazine article is an excerpt from his book. discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/13mathmadeflesh Found a short, two minute answer to your question, Max Tegmark. Interesting video. He mentions 3 basic positions: 1) mathematics is a useful tool, even though we've just made it up 2) there's something fundamentally mathematical about nature 3) our universe is completely mathematical These are obviously just different mental positions and in that sense they are all the same. But if I had to choose one position that makes the most sense, I'd probably choose #2. What could be seen as almost completely mathematical is not the universe or nature, but the intellect. And if that's the lens you use to look into the universe, then the universe will look almost completely mathematical, of course.



Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2019 19:05:37 GMT 5


Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0

Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 17:51:50 GMT 5
In a fundamental way, people use stories to make sense of experience, and depending on the context of the narrative, be it spiritualist, religious, philosophical or scientific, individuals become dogmatic with their bias. On this forum a 'nondual' narrative will trump other categories, but essentially it is a pretext of truth that in all discursive contexts remains elusive. In math it is incompleteness, in physics it is a measurement problem or uncertainty principle. In religion it is mysterious ways and in in spiritualism it's just a finger pointing  and all narratives go on forever, often in a circular fashion, without ever arriving at conclusions  which is how it should be  because there there is no truth  only meaning  but there is influence to any form of authoritative voice, like Ramana's, Buddha's, or Teal Swan's for that matter. I remember I thought I knew things and would speak with authority as if what I said was true, but things changed and the truth as I saw it was undermined by what I learned next, and that truth again undermined, and again, until I reached a point where I'm sure of one thing only: that what I take to be true now will be undermined in the future. This allows me to have a very loose grip on what I believe, and there is nothing I can say now with the conviction of certainty, nor do I believe the things which others such as Niz or Diaper Guy say. But that is not to say these said things are not meaningful. They are meaningful, but only in the way I ascribe meaning to them. This implies the inanity of thinking a koan has a right answer. If it does, it is another form of right than correct. There are different kinds of right from being correct to having intentions, and different kinds of meaning from what you mean to say and what you mean to invoke by so saying. If someone calls me an idiot I know what they mean by what they say and I know they mean to denigrate me with such a characterisation... and the opposite 'meaning' (both connotations) is true of compliments. I guess what I mean to say is, to communicate meaning is to exert an intention, and when saying what one means it's prudent to know the motive behind saying it.



Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 30, 2019 18:44:15 GMT 5
There are scientists on both sides. I used to converse on Beliefnet some before it ended. There was a guy in the science section who said you can't even find a 2 anywhere in the universe. So he considered all math to be human conceived abstractions. But some mathematicians are Platonist. Physicist John Wheeler concluded, or theorized at least, information is the most fundamental aspect of the universe. He encapsulated this as "It from bit". Mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was a Platonist. Physicist Max Tegmark wrote a book and appeared on the TV program Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman describing how he believed everything is made of math. I read his very good book, Our Mathematical Universe. I tried to find a video clip. This magazine article is an excerpt from his book. discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/13mathmadeflesh Found a short, two minute answer to your question, Max Tegmark. Interesting video. He mentions 3 basic positions: 1) mathematics is a useful tool, even though we've just made it up 2) there's something fundamentally mathematical about nature 3) our universe is completely mathematical These are obviously just different mental positions and in that sense they are all the same. But if I had to choose one position that makes the most sense, I'd probably choose #2. What could be seen as almost completely mathematical is not the universe or nature, but the intellect. And if that's the lens you use to look into the universe, then the universe will look almost completely mathematical, of course. Been busy. Back now. Agree. (#2)

