|
Post by frankshank on Sept 6, 2010 3:28:18 GMT -5
michaelseesawaytomakesomemoney. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Sept 6, 2010 8:32:35 GMT -5
Enigma,
Don't worry I will be gentle. Peace Michael
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 6, 2010 16:02:32 GMT -5
Enigma,
I see your point but as far as I see it it misses the mark. What we're talking about are representations that have been tested ad infinitum. You can say that, when every time we test the formula and the world happens to behave according to the formula, God just didn't feel like performing what we would describe as a miracle, which is ok, but then the discussion is obviously over. See, I'm not talking about far out theories, I'm talking about 1+1=2. Have you seen it equal three, have you seen a squared circle or some similar impossibility? Because if not, I don't think it's reasonable to talk about variable creation in this context.
Fine with me. Not many claim that our descriptions are the transcrips of God's holy word, only that they are good representations of what is happening and very accurate predictions of what is going to happen.
What I mean by "fundamental law" is not that every conceivable universe has to have gravity or something similarly specific. Slightly tweak one elementary particle and suddenly you have a completely different universe, one that to us would seem totally bizarre. What I mean is that while math exists in this universe in such a way that 1+1=2, how can you say that in another universe 1+1 might equal three, without even being able to imagine it?
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 6, 2010 16:04:02 GMT -5
Zendancer,
2+2=1, ok fine. But that's not what I'm inquiring about. Enigma said, that 1+1=2 is a creation. If it is a creation, then I'd expect it to potentially have been created different, like 1+1=3. But there is nobody, including you, who can fathom such an equation. How then, can you guys claim it to be a, potentially variable, creation? Physical laws are variable, I can remotely imagine such a possibilty. But math seems to be such that either it's there or it isn't. And if it's there it can be only one way and not another. You said that math is imaginary. But it seems to me like it's only possible to either imagine math or not imagine math. It's not possible to imagine math in any different way from how it is, which to me is a hint that math is not a creation but rather a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 6, 2010 16:15:39 GMT -5
Consciousness is the only thing you really know. Only because it's the only thing I know doesn't mean that it's the only thing that exists. Everything minus consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 6, 2010 17:26:56 GMT -5
Zendancer, 2+2=1, ok fine. But that's not what I'm inquiring about. Enigma said, that 1+1=2 is a creation. If it is a creation, then I'd expect it to potentially have been created different, like 1+1=3. But there is nobody, including you, who can fathom such an equation. How then, can you guys claim it to be a, potentially variable, creation? Physical laws are variable, I can remotely imagine such a possibilty. But math seems to be such that either it's there or it isn't. And if it's there it can be only one way and not another. You said that math is imaginary. But it seems to me like it's only possible to either imagine math or not imagine math. It's not possible to imagine math in any different way from how it is, which to me is a hint that math is not a creation but rather a necessity. Question: Enigma is making a slightly different point than I am, but I can see where he's coming from. I'm not going to attempt a complete answer to the questions you raised today, because I'm on a slow computer and I don't want to write or think that much. LOL. The issues are interesting, however, and I want to think about them some more after my vacation is over. Here are just a few points that I would make at this time. 1. Contrary to what you wrote in the last line, above, it is quite possible to imagine math in ways that apparently have nothing to do with observed reality. Mathematicians create all kinds of unusual mathematical systems that have no obvious meaning in our everyday world. Ironically, some of these math systems are later found to have utility in this world. When Einstein was working on relativity theory, he used an abstract non-linar geometry developed (imagined) by the mathematician Riemann because it could describe things that ordinary math could not. 2. At one time all scientists thought that reality was governed by strict deterministic laws. They thought that the laws were "out there." Quantum mechanics and relativity theory came along and destroyed that perception. QM is essentially probabalistic, meaning that we are always talking about what "may" happen and what is "probable." IOW, as we go deeper and deeper into explaining or predicting reality, our math has to become more and more abstract and a lot weirder. To fully explain reality our math would have to become infinitely weird! 3. Because math is an exercise in imagination it is not static, and it is dependent upon what we are attempting to describe or explain. As I noted, if we're talking about the absolute, 2+2=1. If we're talking about human beings, 1+1=3, or 4, or 5 (one man plus one woman equals three, four, or five people depending upon how many babies the woman has). If we're talking about nuclear war, 1+1=0 (one bomb plus one city equals no bomb and no city). Etc. We start out with ________________. We then imagine that what we see is "composed" of "things." Thingness is an idea that can be symbolized with words (that is a tree) which is another idea, or numbers (that is one tree) which is another idea, or letters (as in algebra where the letter "x" might stand for an unknown number) which is another idea. Math is therefore an alternative way of imagining a world, or imagining this particular world. It is a creation of the human mind and may or may not relate to anything meaningful. It is possible to start with bizarre rules and create an internally coherent system of math that is utterly inapplicable to anything in our known world. I think that the point E. is making is that math is not a priori in any existential sense. One of the things I realized as a result of an initial cosmic consciousness experience is that the universe can do whatever it wants to do. It is not bound by any rules at all. I do not know if Jesus walked on water, or if Kabir raised someone from the dead, or if a Tibetan master put his disciple's hand through a solid rock wall as a demonstration, or if a Korean Zen Master caused a waterfall to reverse direction for the same reason, or if any of the other strange reports that fill spiritual books around the world actually occurred, but any of those things are possible. Most amazing to me is that quantum mechanics allows for such possibilities and can calculate the odds. Needless to say, perhaps, the odds of such events are exceedingly small, but they are not zero! Think about that. This tells me that QM is a very accurate abstract system for describing and predicting how the real world operates. It is, however, a created system that simulates the real thing. The real thing is __________. If ______________is imagined to be more complex than it currently is (as a result of big machines crashing subatomic particles together at higher electron volt levels than are now possible, then a newer kind of mechanics may need to be developed of which QM will become a special case. Do you see what is going on here and what these words are pointing to?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Sept 6, 2010 17:42:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 6, 2010 19:19:57 GMT -5
Consciousness is the only thing you really know. Only because it's the only thing I know doesn't mean that it's the only thing that exists. Everything minus consciousness. Hehe, yes, nice, but everything else is just assumed! What is the only way to know "everything else?"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2010 0:51:21 GMT -5
Enigma, I see your point but as far as I see it it misses the mark. What we're talking about are representations that have been tested ad infinitum. You can say that, when every time we test the formula and the world happens to behave according to the formula, God just didn't feel like performing what we would describe as a miracle, which is ok, but then the discussion is obviously over. See, I'm not talking about far out theories, I'm talking about 1+1=2. Have you seen it equal three, have you seen a squared circle or some similar impossibility? Because if not, I don't think it's reasonable to talk about variable creation in this context. Fine with me. Not many claim that our descriptions are the transcrips of God's holy word, only that they are good representations of what is happening and very accurate predictions of what is going to happen. What I mean by "fundamental law" is not that every conceivable universe has to have gravity or something similarly specific. Slightly tweak one elementary particle and suddenly you have a completely different universe, one that to us would seem totally bizarre. What I mean is that while math exists in this universe in such a way that 1+1=2, how can you say that in another universe 1+1 might equal three, without even being able to imagine it? I don't mean to say that in some universe 1+1 might equal 3. I'm saying that you define the conditions, write a symbolic formula to express those conditions, then forget that you defined them and pretend that you've discovered some fundamental law. If you see 1 apple here and 1 apple there in front of you and pick both of them up, you're going to find yourself with 2 apples. You find yourself with 2 apples because you identified 1 here and 1 there and picked them up. You've made it impossible to find yourself with 3 apples. You can write a formula for that which says 1+1=2 and astound yourself with the repeatability and amazing accuracy of that formula, and declare that you've discovered some immutable law of the universe, but all you've really done is describe your own defined conditions in another language. Again, it's a simplified example for a simple point. We can make it more complicated if you want, but the point is that you can define any set of conditions about what actually happens, and express that in numbers instead of words, but you haven't discovered anything. More importantly, Consciousness creates, and it creates from within the creation. You cannot separate the observed from the observer so as to discover something objective. Everything is subjective because it is all the subject.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Sept 7, 2010 8:46:31 GMT -5
As I said look at Fibonacci numbers. Who defines them? They occur naturally everywhere.
I will stop posting here at least for now. The reason is there are 2 members here that dominate the board and their minds are very closed to any other ideas that finds a conflict with their idea. Minds need to be open to work. But you 2 can just say mind is a illusion and be done with it.
Sorry but nothing grows in such a atmosphere. Now if you say what needs to grow? Who is it that is growing? Once again these are abstract answers that get you nowhere. If you feel you are perfect and no growth is possible then no need for this site or the dialogue. It's really simple guys.
Be well and enjoy the moments.
Peace to all
May all in the world awaken
Also ZD and Enigma no need to attack my statement or delete it. I will not respond nor debate with either of you unless I see some humbleness and openness on your part.
It is what it is. learn to live with things without the need to do anything it will help you.
Peace Michael[/color][/b]
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 7, 2010 16:01:03 GMT -5
As I said look at Fibonacci numbers. Who defines them? They occur naturally everywhere.
I will stop posting here at least for now. The reason is there are 2 members here that dominate the board and their minds are very closed to any other ideas that finds a conflict with their idea. Minds need to be open to work. But you 2 can just say mind is a illusion and be done with it.
Sorry but nothing grows in such a atmosphere. Now if you say what needs to grow? Who is it that is growing? Once again these are abstract answers that get you nowhere. If you feel you are perfect and no growth is possible then no need for this site or the dialogue. It's really simple guys.
Be well and enjoy the moments.
Peace to all
May all in the world awaken
Also ZD and Enigma no need to attack my statement or delete it. I will not respond nor debate with either of you unless I see some humbleness and openness on your part.
It is what it is. learn to live with things without the need to do anything it will help you.
Peace Michael [/color][/b][/quote] The name says Spiritualteachers.org Discussion Boards. I have been silent for a while; just reading the recent posts on the forum and I agree with" michealsees" post. This forum has and is dominated by Advaita philosophy. There are other spiritual philosophies that can and should be discussed on this forum as well as different interpretations of Advaita. zendancer, you are the moderator, as such I would expect a nonpartisan approach to the discussions on this board. However, your posts are anything but nonpartisan and I can see where you're coming from, but as moderator you should give everyone a fair hearing and not dismiss someone's statements, opinions because they don't agree with your point of view. In fairness to those that come upon this site I suggest a change in the name of this site to: Advaitateachers.org Discussion Boards. Klaus
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Sept 7, 2010 17:31:33 GMT -5
Please don't leave. Keep the conversation going. Enigma and ZD have issues. I love them but they can't help themselves. Heck they don't even think any of us exist. Crazy cooks building their advaita cult and terrorizing posters with different opinions.
Another perspective is thank goodness their patterns like to post because without them this board would lose a great deal of insight. I still miss lightmystic and a couple others that rarely post anymore.
Don't get mad or hurt but get even and slice their posts to smithereens.
Klaus, your creating a lot of suffering by using words should and expect. Oh and fairness too is one of those things that just creates all sort of reality struggles.
michaelsees, can you summarize your major points that are different than the enigmadancer bullies?
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 7, 2010 19:09:06 GMT -5
Hehehe, nondual upheaval. There's literally too few of us to actually have a fight.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 7, 2010 20:09:36 GMT -5
Hehehe, nondual upheaval. There's literally too few of us to actually have a fight. Porto: Now that's funny. I guess we'll have to be content with only the appearance of a fight. LOL Klaus: I'd love to give this job to someone else, but where else could I earn this much money? Please don't tell E. how much Shawn is paying me or he'll get jealous and want part of the action. Hey, life is wild. Yesterday Carol and I hiked up Mt. Sanitas, the small mountain that overlooks Boulder, CO. We came back down to our car at 10:25, and as we were driving away, I looked in the rearview mirror and saw an enormous plume of smoke billow up from Sunshine Canyon located directly behind Mt. Sanitas. By the time we got to a restaurant for lunch the smoke had covered the city. Turns out a big forest fire broke out just as we were leaving. Thirty minutes after we left the summit of Sanitas it was totally engulfed in smoke. I don't know how the rest of the hikers were able to find their way down. Last night we were driving back to Boulder from a location east of town and the tops of the mountains behind Sanitas were ablaze--bright orange flames penetrating the smoky sky. We woke up this morning with smoke in our room and smoke all over town, so we left and went to hike in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area adjacent to the Rocky Mountain National Park. We finally got out of the smoke at 9500 feet and it was blue sky all the way to Blue Lake at 12,000 feet. We came back to town this afternoon and discovered that the fire is still raging out of control. 65 homes have burned so far and the sky is full of airtankers dropping retardant just beyond the crest of Sanitas. Totally surreal. 3000 people have so far been evacuated from the hills west of Boulder. As for the website, I have received three requests from members to delete particular posts, but so far, not a single post has been deleted. Everyone is welcome to say whatever they want as long as they keep it civil. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2010 20:27:14 GMT -5
The duel of the nondualists! A battle to the death for the right to be agreed with for some reason. Hehe.
I would play along but I really don't know what the rules of this game are. So Michael talks about nonduality, which causes others to talk back about nonduality, and that's bullying, and really we should be talking back about something else.....and answering fewer of the posts....or giving others the microphone....or what?
|
|