(originally posted as a Status by Anand)

"Do we live inside a mathematical equation?   see article here

Note: Starting around 1970 with the famous experiment by Clauser et..al.  The wall between Philosophy, Math, and Physics was breached. It has not been the same ever since.

(Tao od Physics; Dancing Wu Li Masters were written by members from this group e.g.)

The "Fundamental Fysics Group" was important in this development; returning to the more metaphysical origins of early Quantum Mechanics whose spirit had been lost. Eastern Metaphysics was commonly explored during the initial foundational developments.

Physics actually has quit dealing with particles; everything is only vibrations in several fields existing in all time and space. Gravity fields, EM fields etc They unfortunately use the term "particles" in the media, which many scientists have often complained about. There are no such things as particles.

It all is only consciousness.

all this is that, all that is this.

As above so below; as below, so above.

Views: 576

Replies to This Discussion

One could probably equally call reality all mathematics, all mind, and all reason, with various purely philosophical mathematical models relating those in different ways. Tegmark (in the article linked to) is probably one of the best scientists, but modern Pythagorean-Neoplatonic maths writers have pointed out he made some mistakes.

Saying an electron is a mathematical object is fine, if you say it is all about numbers, but its form has to be mathematical too... though this is not really one of his mistakes, just something most people overlook until they realize what mathematical forms, such as points, are--if one tries to 'zoom in' on infinite levels of particles, when you 'get to infinity,' you get to points... so on the lowest level, an electron is either made of some configuration of points, or exists as energy because of the interaction of all monadic points in the universe... or perhaps a combination of both (i.e. if a 'particle' is in the mineral kingdom, it is its own unconscious life form and has its own monad, similar to what HPB said about atoms.)

Tegmark's main mistake is the idea that a purely mathematical reality is compatible with the idea of infinite material realities. Actually, if reality is mathematical, then necessarily, infinite dimensions of infinite space exist, so all so-called 'universes' that have an arbitrary number of dimensions all exist in a space with one more dimension, and there are infinite dimensions, anyway. The multiverse theory is just one of over 10 interpretations of quantum mechanics--the absurd mainstream Copenhagen interpretation--but the Bohm & de Broglie interpretation is better. Only one of these interpetations is right, but the interpretations are not the maths itself... and the reality of mathematical space that would hold all universes, making them actually one universe, is part of maths itself.

Last time I debated someone who said there is a 'God' and fundamental reality other than mathematics (who knows what--something rather ill-defined if it is independent of maths,) I pointed out there was a 500-page mathematical proof. Actually, there is a 20000+ page one, that is well over 20000 if all the advanced calculations were shown in detail rather than if it assumed the reader knew how to do those and would do those (so it is really well over 20000, because proofs are supposed to show all steps.) That is larger than the Bible, Vedas, probably also Great Sutra on Perfect Wisdom in 100000 Lines, etc., and the proof is all about a single idea... so that just shows maths is the vastest, most in-depth subject of knowledge. Again, science depends on maths, but maths depends on nothing at all.. and as for religion, it depends on philosophy, which depends on formal reasoning, which is 100% expressible in maths.

Dear David ,

           Really nice to hear from you after a long time , call it a "coincidence'' or whatever , I had enquired about you to Joe a couple of days back , really miss your erudite views, Your piece is absolutely lovely , would I be correct  in interpreting that mathematics would by your definition include all things which are structured "even thinking" which has a sound basis and is structured , and of which its results are demonstrable with lucidity ? ,Though the laws may not be at present readily  demonstrable in a gross manner but rather would be demonstrable as a result as an existing object available for human perception in the real world ie. if looked at if the primary or leading hypothesis that is proved through various stages of structured knowledge (demonstrable) at each level by knowledge itself leading to the next step wherein the physically existing and immediately perceptible world would be a result that is cognized (again) through structure and which in itself requires no further validation  ? . Would I be correct in understanding that mathematics as a representation of truth , the word Idea would subsume under its concept all "things structured " including the act of right reasoning and thinking , in fact everything suble also within its fold which reflects a structure . Which is not to say that I am against theories of randomness or chaos - but rather your post gives me the idea that it would embrace just as any solid becomes liquified and the rules change and in relation to the gaseous stage or as we go higher up in subtlety it ostensibly seems that there is chaos or randomness but only in relation to the preceding stage , and when the subtler state is examined with another still subtler stage say like liquids vs. Gas , then liquids are found to have a "Mathematical" structure (if I am to understand from the meaning ) and the as yet stage which has not been examined appears random and chaotic , which would yield more "Mathematical" regularity when a succeeding state is examined which would now appear chaotic . It would be like something akin to saying that if taken in a cosmic manner - our world is mathematical and the solar system may look chaotic due to the exponential increase in the objects available at that level of knowledge , once the 'sight' is adjusted to that level then it yield a certain structure , say a structure of planets , galactic systems, asteroid belts, shooting stars each which have their own rules and when viewed whollistically would yield a "mathematics for that level " which would be apparent only on moving to the succeeding level which would subsume the preceding level within it . Now that would be Mathematics as you say I hope and as I have understood from reading your post . Looking forward to your views on whether I have read your post correctly.I mean "structure" - not laws which endow a feeling of structure as we see on earth , or just limited to calculations , but I mean by structure "Forms" in its highest word idea .

Yes, mathematics would particularly include what you asked it does by my definition, because, as I have probably said before here, 'everything is mathematics; mathematics explains everything.' Maths studies structures (i.e. order & chaos which has its own structure, though 'structure' might have some particular meaning in maths,) as well as laws about structures, but not laws which endow any feeling (such as physics might do when people say what they feel it means, like the 10+ interpretations of quantum mechanics, 'QM.')

If I had more time to spend here, I would, and would be more active as an admin... but I have somewhat moved away from Theosophy... even before I was a theosophist, I considered myself primarily a philosopher, and then after a few years of being a theosophist, went back to that. Theosophy is of course really its own philosophical/religious school of thought, philosophy, or religion, that just happens to use science (and does not integrate it all, nor all of philosophy, and would not want to integrate all religion, such as Aztec human sacrifice religion or Satanism)... well, I have been over that in various posts.

I also tried to run some software so I could be in the chat room in my IM program, but that did not work.

If you ever want to say something to me, just send me a message.

I will probably not be active for a long time again, until maths comes up again... and it is unfortunate this is only in the science group, though I suppose it would bore many people in the forum... but they should know about it, even if they do not want to know the details.

I had once said maths is the only liberation... I still think so, but it depends on your definition of liberation. For example, I reached a stage in Yoga/meditation, in which I knew objectively from my experience (not imagination) and descriptions of results of Yoga that I reached yogic liberation years ago--or a lesser stage of it before final liberation... and most of the time, I am 'at peace,' to an extent some in Theravada Buddha Dharma, and Zen, would say I attained nirvana ('peace') whatever stage they might say I am at... but after my yogic/meditation success, and even after being at peace sometimes, I still went through a lot of times of being, like most people, somewhat irrational. The development of the ajna chakra, and understanding the three seals and four noble truths and their implications while being 'at peace' does not mean someone is permanently liberated or enlightened. To be permanently liberated or enlightened, you have to be 100% rational, and maths is the highest rational subject, which is why I said what I did about liberation.

Maths, however you want to define it (I use the Oxford English Dictionary, and academic definitions,) can be applied to any question or idea--not just thinking, but being & becoming. So, for example, if spirit is an existence that is being and/or becoming, maths can also be used to explain how spirit works... and as I have said before, if spirit has form, that is geometric, and if it does not, then each spirit is a mathematical point--which is formless--and is still geometric. The idea everything is maths should not be something scary or 'arrogant' or 'of hubris' or 'blasphemy.' It should be just one way of looking at things, but also the ultimate way, or in conjunction with a personally subjective ultimate way, if one must have it that way... and even philosophy, religion, spirituality, psychology can all benefit from maths & logic & reason (the latter two which I have explained are maths.) It is fine to 'transcend' logic & reason, i.e. to have pauses in mentation, to learn to stabilize the mind, but ultimately, only the application of mind will improve the human condition. Society is not going to become better by everyone becoming like the most extreme Jains and withdrawing from civilization--no matter the great truths in their atheist but idealist/spiritual philosophy. It is the application of mind & maths that will lead to the final state of civilization--if possible--of being perfect, in which everyone will realize the truths that philosophers poetically got to in the East, but with the advantages science brings. The intuition of the East is great, but it is the West--Greece--that was the origin of pure rationalism... of course, intuition can be called 'super-reason,' and not everyone in the West has that as much, except people focused on the ancient/Classical philosophy that actually had some of the same ideas of the East. I read that Greece got the ideas from the East, but then I read the first recorded texts of the six Hindu schools were in CE (AD,) not BCE... but who knows--it is not really a big deal... both sorts of ideas will have to be used, but now I focus more on the (IMO) Greek-originated rationalist idealism.

Dear David ,

    Thanks a lot , you do set at rest a lot of doubts that I had , I see we are not way off at a tangent , yes the problem was in understanding the scope of the concept that you had endowed , yes your previous post was quite clear on that and your following discussion is as good and reinforces the scale of conception . really great stuff you have touched upon a very wide cosmic canvas.

As the dialogue in the popular movie The Matrix says:

The Architect: Your life is the sum of the remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.

Are we really the sum of the reminders of an unbalanced equation? Is that why we find the conceptualization of Reality impossible, but speculation on it feasible?

Perhaps you quoted that because of me sharing a 'meme' of Morpheus being restated to say 'what if I told you everything is mathematics?' (which is not what he actually said.) Of course, we are not just remainders of an equation. Besides that modern Pythagorean-Neoplatonists have called us our own mathematical points, I think they have also said each person is their own equation. We are eternal, and do not depend on anything else, though mathematics explains what we are and how reality works, and why (science only models how for the knowledge of the day, and then is overturned, and never explains why.)

Thanks David. I do follow your posts on facebook. theosophy.net is richer by your presence.

(see bottom comment - if you want to skip this stuff)

To say something like an electron is numbers is a rather a bad way of putting it.
Electrons have mass, charge, spin (fermionic: + or - 1/2), magnetic moment and that is about it. But those numbers do not really describe the electron.
An analogy would be that it may be represented as a probability current density that exists in all space-time (at any instant in time). The spin also must be represented as something more like a Bloch Sphere; by current density one means a  type of continuous flow. it may have sources and sinks of current density which would create and annihilate parts the vibrating fluid flow.

So one has to skip the concept of a point when describing it. It has spatial form, spin form etc. if you look at these shapes and forms they extend nearly everywhere at once. That is why it is a field consisting of quantities that change in all direction at once per electron, and appear as vibrations of these quantities throughout space. Numbers rather a grand oversimplification. In fact, Cayley-numbers are used in the forms, not Real numbers.


Bloch Sphere. Note: the |psi> is the spin direction, in a separate vector space of complex numbers (cayley-numbers).


The actual point of this comment is that numbers in QM are not numbers. They have properties that do not commute. It uses things where xy = yx is false in general. It is like saying 6x7 is not equal to 7x6

That is the type of umbers being used. Also the Form of the "thing" is not simple. They have weird vibrations in weird mathematical spaces, not in reality.

There is a fairly balanced article on mathematics and Reality here.

The question that arises is how can one be sure that the wave particle duality or the wave itself is the consciousness. What if there is a Reality behind that?

I did not read much of the article, and duality is certainly not consciousness--which is a problematic word, because it often (and should) refers to the ability to have a thought of 'I,' so not everything is 'conscious' (but some are unconscious, or still aware, etc.)--but waves, of course, are a type of line so consist of points (as do particles, at least on the smallest level, or when not considered to be the illusory manifestation of energy produced by the interaction of infinite points/monads/minds in infinite space.) To be clearer, the motion of any point/monad/mind creates a wave of energy through the space of other points/monads/minds, and the wave can be described as going into some other points/monads/minds... which are acted upon and sense that subjectively, because like the objective infinite universe of mathematics, points/monads/minds contain a subjective infinite reality of their own, working by all the laws of maths. So, the reality behind particles & waves, is, again, points, as is the reality that is in all space, and which all space can be simplified to (a point containing all points.)

Today cutting edge physics is producing theories that postulate a matrix of consciousness that substands both matter and energy. Absolute Reality is not physical, but metaphysical. Consciousness emanates from a matrix of digital information bits, and Absolute Reality is at root consciousness. Many modern cosmologists posit that all manifestation is mind or consciousness. It originates in a universal mind, consciousness, logos, matrix, or intelligence that serves as the recursive operating system, program, and programmer of all reality. Rather than standing apart from reality like a Creator, it exists within and encompasses all reality. The universe itself is infinitely intelligent, alive and sentient through all scales of being and dimensions of reality. Every tiniest unit of reality has some degree of psychic life and intelligence, and ultimately each is a unit of the universal consciousness from which it emanates.


Interesting idea, but physics is only applied mathematics at best (and religion at worst,) so we are getting off-topic... the final, working  theory of physics will be purely mathematical and not at all religious--it will have no use for any idea of 'God,' which of course, if physics used it, physics would be patriarchal & misogynist (which is why I use the more modern term 'The Divine.') The only relevant idea of The Divine besides mathematics itself, is the first being--and every subsequent being--that individually and then collectively (eventually as all beings) attain complete mastery of mathematics. If the modern Pythagoreans, Tegmark, Captain Kumar and myself are right, then that is the only 'The Divine' necessary.

In fact, not only should physics do away with any religious ideology, but physics should be mathematical to the extent that, if mathematics was not traditionally idealist, then physics would be hardcore materialist (so atheist.) In other words, I am condoning reductionism, but in the context of idealism rather than materialism: throw out 'God;' take a viewpoint like Jain Dharma (the most compassionate & sublime/deep philosophy of India, and which has spirit, but not 'creator,') or the viewpoint that researchers recently arguably showed Plato had (by analyzing ideas encoded in the original, verse versions of some of his work)--that the world only works because of scientific/mathematical laws, not 'gods/God.' They argued that Plato was atheist, but it was just as dangerous an idea even in the ancient Greek polytheistic society... but that is where Classical philosophy started. Western theism is just an artifact of Abrahamism and has no use in philosophical mathematics apart from a 'The Divine' that is mathematical. One could call it a 'Godhead' if one wants, or perhaps 'The All,' 'The One,' or 'The Nous' (some of which are various levels,) but I find such Greek terms better than terms that have been polluted with Abrahamism--the Greek terms are more pan(en)theist so have modern atheist or 'mathematical theist' (not really panenthiest) relevance and can be updated.

On the other hand, I am not sure where the term 'Godhead' came from. Maybe it was from Boehme or Hegel, both of whom I consider to have been modern Pythagoreans (or Renaissance or whatever in the case of Boehme,) but they were speaking for the largely Abrahamic audience of the day, so I sort of want to throw out that term... another term I could accept is 'Theon,' because it is probably neutral, unlike Theos and Thea... and speaking of that, in the case of philosophy, mythology, psychology, and sociology, I would prefer the term 'Goddesshead,' 'Goddess' or 'Thea' over the patriarchal ones.

Patriarchal monotheism is the biggest problem the world ever faced. The feminine will have to be emphasized to overcome this, and as for the symbology of it: note that basically all ancient religions have a feminine cosmology... in biology, the female always gives birth to the male, so the only appropriate sexist mythology is one that emphasizes the feminine (not just because it is accurate, but to bring balance back to the world such as by having more/mostly female leaders to decrease the violence usually started by male psychobiology.)

Not only does monotheism cause oppression of women and non-believers, but it makes 'God' out to be superior and above everyone--a being to cower & kneel to--rather than every mind equally creating existence, with absolutely no being being different or 'above' others other than in level of development, sort of like in Jain Dharma and the most cutting-edge modern Western philosophy.


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2017   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service