Replies to This Discussion

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on June 11, 2013 at 9:47am

kind of depends on what you are ultimately after. Most of the phenomena w.r.t. earth's magnetic field can be handled without them (imaginary waves and fields). However, depending on the actual question, the answer could also be a "yes."

The questions usually asked on that phenomena allows one to ignore them. In reality - they are what makes it all work.

There is also a thing called state-space which is not real, but often mandatory to examine/view the question..

John

sorry for the vague answer.

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on June 14, 2013 at 10:39pm

"If you do not understand what I said about points, then you could read some works of Leibniz or modern Leibnizians... or I might explain later."

a link would do it.

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on June 15, 2013 at 1:07am

Dear David ,

 I agree with you , Teleology deals with the finer aspects of matter , the yogic siddhis are the same , people think that yogic siddhis are something to lay with and acquire , it is within everyone and is the way of life in the subtle realms , it is the the physics of the post body consciousness, and relates to ones knowledge and will , since actions are just that much once the body is not there , in fact Action on the earthy plane is only Knowledge and will in essence , bad knowledge makes for bad willing , it is simple .There are forms and distances post death , geometry is a prequisite and contained in the knowledge , failing which no forms will be perceived in the subtler regions which coexist with us and Geometry is explained by figures and numbers (ie.Mathematics ) so the validity still persists of these  post death .It is highly necessary to have intuitive knowledge of this science as they are integral to the understanding of the phenomenology of the senses . Teleporting , clairaudience , clairvoyance and instant materialization , dematerialization , bcoming big , becoming light, becoming small, etc are all just the major divisons which exploit the idea of nature contained in matter contained in the real idea of the forces which are collectively called shakthi - and in english they are probably known as GRavity, Electricity , Magnetism etc which as any sane person can intuit easily does not hold good in the subtler regions - it is variations of these enrgies that have sway like feelings, attraction and repulsion and lightness and heaviness, smallness and bignness, light and dark which we now call 'Attributes" and are just adjectives . LIke the girl is fair or the boy is fat !!. 

You can teleport matter through distance and time and through  objects , but its consistency is an act of will and knowledge , and the materials are the impressions of smell, taste, form,sound and feeling (touch) - not skin or blood or eyes etc . It requires an immense will which is subject to knowledge not as we are now where the will dictates knowledge !!!. there is an inversion when everything becomes physical from the laws of the universe.

Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on June 13, 2013 at 8:29am

Here is something that may bring smile to the faces of those overburdened with the supremacy of mathematics and logic over other systems. Lee Smolin in his recent work Time Reborn, writes:

Stephen Hawking asked, in A Brief History of Time, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Such utterances reveal the absurdity of the view that mathematics is prior to nature. Math in reality comes after nature. It has no generative power. Another way to say this is that in mathematics conclusions are forced by logical implication, whereas in nature events are generated by causal processes acting in time. This is not the same thing; logical implications can model aspects of causal processes, but they’re not identical to causal processes. Logic is not the mirror of causality. Logic and mathematics capture aspects of nature, but never the whole of nature. There are aspects of the real universe that will never be representable in mathematics. One of them is that in the real world it is always some particular moment. So one of the most important lessons that follow once we grasp the reality of time is that nature cannot be captured in any single logical or mathematical system

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on June 13, 2013 at 10:33pm

Dear David ,
I agree with you totally , What stephen Hawkins is enamoured is with open space and the possibilities It holds out to his intellect , it is not correct - The first Principles of Maths or pure numbers and their theories are all intuitive , it has come from within the first person who saw into the the truths of forms and positions. Just as we see a Tree and the idea (not the tree itself) is translated into by abstraction and into knowledge by reason and judgement into communicable knowledge - what I was given to understand - Pure Maths or Arithmetic as some say or the science of numbers are all intuitive truths and are actually tremendous contribution to the enlargement of the intellect and knowledge in man , if we carefully analyze even in the VEdas it says we see generally at first , and then see particularly nest like seeing a forest or a clump of trees and then the focus falls on a particular object . As also we walk into a room in our house "we know' everything but gradually our focus becoms to a particular thing or object wherein next we interact (even internally ) with that object .
What happens is the intuitive and divine ability of the mind to separate through intelligence from the general to the particular which is inherent and the first stirrings of life and living in man , it is pure numbers - without the intutive and unsaid knowledge preexisting of numbers we cannot be in a position to "see" apart from a group of undifferentiated things the specific . and numbers are the representation of this fact and so in no science there is anything pre existing this , even in natural sciences , again forms are pure geometry and which we learn by its translation not by another form but by the reduction into numbers and symbols, position height and distances so intrinsic is again trigonometry which deals with these aspects - these are the bed rock of our perception itself , which is why The science of Maths has crept into every possible science - it is the pure translation of how we have become and an unravelling is eminently possible - It is perception per se and it is subtle and cannot be "seen" without looking for the background and requires the application of thought and reason and judgement - My post on Right thinking underpins this aspect - what is seen is natural sciences (probably)- but to understand it and assimilate it into oneself a 'certain something" is required this is the idea of apartness and groups and similarities which are pre existing our perception and experience and which comes only out of ourself as necessary and essential for the understanding of any object or objects .
Any man without teaching If given 10 Rupees and asked to buy a few things and to return the balance will so easily do it without studies or anything , he can relate objects to reason and inconsequence extract knowledge from the action . Even without knowing counting the idea which is a complex set of actions will appear to him and will inhere in him easily much more easily that even natural science where however much you may explain a fact , the man will not recollect it but with effort .
A big name means nothing in Philosophy proper , if he says things in the domain of the subject whilst sitting in the middle of objects - he will easily and surely make a fool of himself .
How is geometry taught in schools ? We are asked to draw a Circle , or a triangle using the setsquare initially and as fun , this is the awakening of our intution as to forms
next we are told that they are just lines and so on , - this intution and closeness to the real inheres forever in everyone - it is only next we are taught about the nomenclatures and the definitions - by which time everyone is already familiar with the forms "even before' being formally taught and spo it is all understanding without a doubt - next we are taught the translation of maths into geometry , and later into trigonometry (I do not know how it is done in America) - we asre shown how Maths is the bedrock by which higher things are transleted into language for understanding , similarly we are introduced to mathematical symbols and their significance - we used to enjoy maths classes and I do not think there was ever a single "bad'' student . even the worst had learn enough of the fundamentals to last him a life time and to look on this science as more facilitating our lives rather than an ogre of a science.
It was repeatedly brought out by our teacher that the expressions were not to be translated into language as many were wont to such as 1+1=2 , and to think "one plus one is equal to two" - but to see it as the an actual idea , applicable across the spectrum of life - It was insisted by her that these were not language , but "pure" as she put it . She (whom I appreciate more after learning philosophy) . Used to insist that 1 and 1 was real whereas the 2 was an ideanation , thus connecting the concrete with the abstract .Now 2 was real when 1 was real , and she used to (which at that time some of us thought she was crazy ) ask does 1 contain 2 or 2 contain 1 , and which was bigger or smaller - later she showed us how to "think mathematically" when we used to just laugh and shout out various crazy answers - pure quantities was explained , and slowly to make it "thinking alone" and then we were introduced to geometry and geometry represented by statements so that we would relate to it correctly and then to trigonometry . It is only in quantities according to her 2 was bigger than 1 otherwise it just represented a law of incrementing - to be seen objectively and applied as such and then as to whether 1+1=2 in the case of 1 goat and one 1 cow would they be 2 , qualitatively never , quantity devoid of quality yes - thus we were taught how to accept maths in our life and thinking . I am not sure they teach maths like this anymore in my state . Our quite wayward thinking was corrected to a large extent . In later years when I was required to learn boolean algebra the true significance of her teachings came to me when most struggled with a + a = a or b as the case it was quite easy for me to grasp it .I am only just lapsing into a nostalgic aura rather than a scientific one at this point !.
Hawking probably was never taught mathematics like the way we were taught !!. He forgets that he is peering into himself when he is abstracting on the cosmos , and "pulls" the knowledge which is properly resting in the subject , into the domain of the object thus colouring it rather than seeing it "objectively and intuitively" without colouring and for what it is .RAther he "explains" what it means to him which is of no use to any thinking person who can see it colourless and can then subjectively extract the knowledge by conceptualization and then again see it colourless as pure knowledge to himself.
THe manipulation of an idea requires the addition of the perspective of the person Conceptualizing and hence "colour" will come into it - mathematics and a good idea of how it makes coloured reasoning and concepts objective knowledge - which can then be transmitted to anyone in a colourless manner makes it as good as the second man having an idea as the first man who actually saw the "thing in question" as an idea within him first . So the second man does have an advantage over the first provided the first has an idea into this transmission of knowledge (which is colourless) in that his conceptualization will be equal to that of the first person "without'' having seen the object yet the idea will endure correctly and give the same result to the second man who does not have to cogitate - which is why knowledge when transmitted correctly will occupy only the same space and not double it or extend it or shrink it . Many people can have the same knowledge but the knowledge is only one and just because many know it does not mean that there are that many knowledges as it is only one - this right conceptualization devoid of forms . A man who knows something explains it correctly (eg) say a tree and the other has the same knowledge but the space is same . in fact it is infintesamly small , in fact knowledge is said to occupy space or a point only if there is a conscious listener who is embodied and "considered an object by the expounder" in the even there is not such a condition there is only knowledge bereft of space .

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page