The Principle--most controveral movie of science of this century?

[Allcanadian]

@TA

Youre confusing religion with metaphysics
very common error.

Thank you for proving exactly what I was referring to in my post. You have proven it to the letter in fact, again thank you.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

PART II


Kha and other words denoting "Zero" in Connection with the Greek and Indian metaphysics of space


According to an alternative formulation, all things are thought of as ante principium shut up within, and in principio as proceeding from, a common ground, rock, or mountain (budhna, adri, parvata, etc.): this ground, thought of as resting island like within the undifferentiated sea of universal possibility (x.89.4, where the waters pour sagarasya budhnat), is merely another aspect of our axle point (,dni), regarded as the primary assumption toward which the whole potentiality of existence is focused by the primary acts of intellection and will. This means that a priori undimensioned space (kha, akasa, etc.) underlies and is the mother of the point, rather than that the latter has an independent origin; and this accords with the logical order of thought, which proceeds from potentiality to actuality, nonbeing to being. This ground or point is, in fact, the "rock of ages" (asmany anante, 1.130.3; adrim . . . acyutam, v1.i7.5) .Here ante princi pium Agni lies occulted (guha santam, 1.141.3, etc.) as Ahi Budhnya, "in the ground of space, concealing both his ends" (budhne rajaso . . . guhamdno ants, iv.i.ii, where it may be noted that guhamano anta is tantamount to ananta, literally "end less," "in finite," "eternal"), hence he is called "chthonic" (nabhir agni prthivya, 1.59.2, etc.), and is born in this ground (jayata prathamah . . . budhne, iv.i.ii) and stands erect, Janus like, at the parting of the ways (ayor ha skambha . . . patham visarge, x.5.6) ; hence he gets his chthonic steeds and other treasures (asvabudhna, x.8.3; budhnya vasuni, v11.6.7) . It is only when this rock is cleft that the hidden trine are freed, the waters flow (1.62.3, where Brhaspati bhinad adrim and vidadgah; v.4i.i2, srnvanty dpah . . . adreh). This is, moreover, a center without place, and hence when the Water s have come forth (that is, when the cosmos has come to be) one asks, as in x.iii.8, "where is their beginning (agram), where their ground (budnah), where now, ye Waters, your innermost center (madhyam . . . antah) ?(7)
Thus metaphysically, in the symbolism of the Wheel, the surface blank (sunya) in the initial nonbeing (asat) of any formulation (samkalpa) represents the truly infinite (adin) and maternal possibility of being; the axle point or nave, exemplary being (visvam ekam, RV 111.54.8 = integral omnipresence); the actual construction, a mentally accomplished partition of being into existences; each spoke, the integration of an individual as nama rupa, that is, as archetypal inwardly and phenomenal outwardly; the felly, the principle of multiplicity (visamatva). Or, employing a more theological terminology : the undetermined surface represents the Godhead (aditi, parabrahman, tamas, apah) ; the axle point or immovable rock, God (aditya, aparabrahman, isvara, jyoti) ; the circle of the nave, Heaven (svarga);any point on the circumference of the nave, an intellectual principle (nama, deva) ; the felly, Earth with its analogous (anurupa) phenomena (visva rupani); the construction of the wheel, the sacrificial act of creation (karma,(8) srsti), its abstraction, the act of dissolution (laya). Furthermore, the course (gati) of any individual upon the pathway of a spoke is in the beginning centrifugal (pravrtta) and then again centripetal (nivrtta), until the center (madhya) is found; and when the center of individual being coincides with the center of the wheel, he is emancipated (mukta), the extension of the wheel no longer involving him in local motion, at the same time that its entire circuit now becomes for him one picture (jagaccitra)(9) seen in simultaneity, who as "round about seer," paridrastr, n1ow "overlooks everything," visvam . . . abhicaste, 1.164.44.
In order to understand the use of terms for "space" (kha, ukasa, antarik~a, sunya, etc.)(10) as verbal symbols of zero (which represents privation of number, and is yet a matrix of number in the sense o=x-x),(11) it must be realized that akasa, etc., represent primarily a concept not of physical space, but of a purely principal space without dimension, though the matrix of dimension." For example, "all these beings arise out of the space (akasad samapadyanta) and return into the space (akasam pratyastam yanti). For the space is older than they, prior to them, and is their last resort (parayanam)," CU I.9.I; "space is the name of the permissive cause of individual integration (akaso vai nama namarupayor nirvahita)," CU VIII.I4; and just as India "opens the closed spaces (apihitj khani)," RV IV.2H.I, so the Self "awakens this rational [cosmos] from chat space (akasat esa khalu idam cetamatram dobhayati)," MU VI.I7, in other words, ex nihilo fit. Furthermore, the locus of this "space" is "within you": "what i's the intrinsic aspect of expansion is the supernal fiery energy in the vacance of the inner man (tat svarupam nabhasah khe antarbhutasya yat param tejah)," MU VII.II;(13) and this same "space in the heart" (antarhrdaya akasa) is the locus (dyatana, vesma, nada, kosla, etc.) where are deposited in secret (guha nihitam) all that is ours already or may be ours on any plane (loka) of experience (CU VIII.I.I 3). At the same time, in BU v.i, this "ancient space" (kha) is identified with Brahman and with the Spirit (kham brahma, kham puranam, vayuram kham iti), and this Brahman is at the same time a plenum or pleroma (purna) such chat "when plenum is taken from plenum, plenum yet remains (14)
Here we get precisely that equivalence of kha and puma, void and plenum, which was remarked upon as noteworthy in the verbal notation of the mathematicians. The thought, moreover, is almost literally repeated when Bhaskara in the Bijaganita(15) defines the term ananta thus: ayam ananto rasih khahara ity ucyate. Asmin vikarah khahare na rasavapi pravistesvapi nihsrtesu bahusvapi syal layasrstikale 'nante 'cyute bhutaganesu yadvat, that is, "This fraction of which the denominator is zero, is called an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has cipher for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many be added or subtracted; just as there is no alteration in the Infinite Immovable (anante acyute)(16) at the time of the emanation or resolution of worlds, though hosts of beings are emanated or withdrawn."

[Allcanadian]

@TA
To me it's all metaphysics and philosophy in a sense because eveything we know as tangible and real can be disproven on a deeper level.

For instance one might say matter is the foundation of all reality... well no not really. Peer reviewed science has proven tangible matter is 99% empty, they have also proven particles are more like clouds of smaller particles and the smallest components known have this nasty habit of dissappearing then reappearing. So what is tangible matter really when one considers it disappears from existence half the time.

As you may understand this includes us, lol, yes apparently every singular part of us is not "here" one half of the time. So it does not take a great stretch of the imagination to understand it's all philosophy on some level. The question is which part of us is doing the thinking... the part supposedly "here" or the part supposedly not "here".

In my opinion the people who claim to know it all are simply long winded and hope to win by attrition however fundamentally nobody can really prove much of anything.

AC

[Armagdn03]

@ allcanadian....

You crack me the fu*ck up. Always love to hear what you have to say. I admit that sometimes I just find your tag and read what you have posted lately, even if I have not read the whole thread. Love the stream of consciousness that seems so seamless. Ill try to give you a call here this weekend and catch up. Hope all is well up in the Hat.

[TheoriaApophasis]

For instance one might say matter is the foundation of all reality... well no not really. Peer reviewed science has proven tangible matter is 99% empty
AC

specificity is divinity


you meant EMPIRICAL reality.

Actually the bull cookies that an atom is 99.9999999% empty space is pure *#((

that "space" is actually FULL of magneto-dielectricity.


The notion that there is no "AIR" in the "balloon of the atom".... is pure BS.






Peer review is the largest fallacy that exists on planet earth. It means utterly NOTHING




Anyone who uses the words "peer review" in a positive manner has smacked themselves in the face with a brick by their own hands.


no offense.

[Allcanadian]

@Armagdn03

You crack me the fu*ck up

LOL, yes I'm not sure I even believe what I believe any more. It just keeps changing so fast. We should talk, been doing some neat experiments with multiple frames of reference. Very abstract stuff you would probably enjoy.

@TA

Actually the bull cookies that an atom is 99.9999999% empty space is pure *#(( that "space" is actually FULL of magneto-dielectricity.

I'm sure it is, if you could send a couple Kg of magneto-dielectricity my way I would be eternally grateful. I would like to do a few experiments this weekend.

Anyone who uses the words "peer review" in a positive manner has smacked themselves in the face with a brick by their own hands.

As far as Peer review goes I also believe it is questionable because proof is dependent on the context of the proof. I just used the term because I knew someone would pounce on it... I would. Peer review is kind of like saying we your peers believe all the procedures are correct which by our logic implies your results are correct even if you are completely wrong about everything.

AC

[wayne.ct]

Zero

Nothing is not and meaningless words are nothing. Is that simple enough to understand?

[Ernst]

TA,
I see you took my advice to look up Keshe. Here is another grandmaster of meaningless torrents of nonsense: Free Energy Finally Discovered | Rodin Coil Vortex Based Math | TEDxCharlotte 2010 Randy Powell - YouTube.
He is really hilarious!
You sure took quite a lot of time to type out your torrent, which I doubt anyone will read.
And all that just because of this:

Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0

When read in its original context, I am pretty sure everyone here (except perhaps for you and your alter ego's) will immediately understand what is meant. So relax, let your keyboard cool down, grab a beer, go play with some magnets, get some sun...


Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Never heard of Keshe, I have no idea what you are referring to.

[aljhoa]

See this video and see the TRUTH, that computer simulation isnt a conjecture, is a hardcore FACT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38YF_VoiCck

Laniakea: Our home supercluster

Al

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0

I believe it is simple logic and reasoning that has created the quagmire we are in today. Personally I use another kind of logic which states that if people were half as intelligent as they think they are then we would have found real solutions to all our problems a long time ago. You see any claim requires proof and the proof we have is conclusive...we and our logic are flawed.

The reason I say this is because I see many people treating logic as a form of religion which is in itself self-supporting and circular in nature. Such as... I think, I am logical, logic is infallible therefore my thinking is infallible.

However in a sense I believe you are correct, "Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0". I believe if we keep using Simple logic and reasoning then the result will be Zero people alive on this planet. You see the deeper logic in my opinion is understanding that our thinking and limited understanding has created the concept we call logic and we are not perfect therefore our logic must be imperfect because it is a reflection of us. Logic is just another way to justify our opinion which may be right or wrong and our history has pretty much proven this as a fact in my opinion.

AC

[Ernst]

AC,

Your post shows exactly what your problem is with logic.
First of all, logic is something that can not be denied. Example:
- all sheep are white + there is a sheep in my garden ==> the sheep in my garden must be white
These first two statements imply the third, without ANY other possibility.
Now suppose I find a black sheep in my garden, then either of the first two statements must be wrong, ie.
- not all sheep are white
- the animal in my garden is not a sheep
This is logic and indeed it is infallible. But here is where you go wrong:

I think, I am logical, logic is infallible therefore my thinking is infallible

No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes. So even though you think logically you are bound to make mistakes, there for your thinking in not infallible, but logic is.
The same goes for math, for example. When you do a math test, you are doing math so you should arrive at the correct answer on every question. But you do not always do, do you? That is because you make mistakes. Does that mean that math is a worthless tool and won't give you the correct answers? No, it does not. Math is fine, it is only your imperfect application of math that makes you go astray.
You ALLMOST get it right when you say

You see the deeper logic in my opinion is understanding that our thinking and limited understanding has created the concept we call logic and we are not perfect therefore our logic must be imperfect because it is a reflection of us.

Logic is perfect and infallible.
We are not perfect and not infallible.
Our APPLICATION of logic is there for neither perfect nor infallible.
Does that mean that ALL our logic deductions are flawed?
Certainly not.
It is the same as saying: people make mistakes with math, there for all math is flawed. So go tell Pythagoras that a² + b² is not c² (in an Euclidian space, of course).
But it is a rather common mistake, I see it all the time.
"I do not understand math, so math must be wrong"
"I do not understand physics, so physics must be wrong"
"I do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, so they must be wrong"
The unfortunate truth is, logic, math, physics and the laws of thermodynamics are correct most of the time, the error is in the mind of the beholder.

Now back to the topic of this thread, this movie is showing a brilliant example of wrongly applied logic.


Ernst.

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

Your post shows exactly what your problem is with logic.
First of all, logic is something that can not be denied.

I can and have denied standard logic so obviously your assumption is incorrect.

Example:
- all sheep are white + there is a sheep in my garden ==> the sheep in my garden must be white
These first two statements imply the third, without ANY other possibility.
Now suppose I find a black sheep in my garden, then either of the first two statements must be wrong, ie.
- not all sheep are white
- the animal in my garden is not a sheep

Acually no, your example is dependent on a typical pattern of though I call progressive. That is one leads to the next however this is not always the case. This is offtopic but I remember shortly after I was married I was in bed reading a book and my wife was watching me with a concerned look on her face so I said --whats up?. She replied, what are you doing and I said I'm reading. She then said, but you started in the in the middle and are reading the pages backwards. I replied, well yes I always start on a random page and read backwards and let my mind piece the pages and the story line together later. I don't believe she ever understood this any more than you would so I will explain. When I read a book and start reading randomly backwards I train my mind to create different patterns of thought which changes how I approach problems which gives me a different perspective and different solutions to problems most cannot fathom...simple, logical.

So you see I do not see the problem as you do, here is how I may see it.

1)the sheep in my garden must be white...no that is absurd and based on sheer speculation.
2) there is a sheep in my garden...sure I can believe that.
3)all sheep are white ... again that is absurd and unfounded.

The obvious question in my opinion is why have you assumed your application of logic is the right one?. You don't have to be the white sheep in your garden you have the choice.

Logic is perfect and infallible.
We are not perfect and not infallible.

No offence but it sounds like you could be preaching to the choir and we could simply replace the term Logic with God. Logic is simply an accepted way of thinking, a way of making things make sense nothing more. In any case the people who worship logic don't have any more real answers than anyone else which by their own logic should have been the first indication that they may be doing something wrong. You see they apply their logic to everyone else but never themselves, such is life.

On a side note, this may sound like maddness to some however if you do the research on the personal lives of some of the greatest minds such as Tesla, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein etc. you would find some common attributes.
They were all out in left field, many used alcohol in excess, most did drugs and many were womanizers. They all had contempt for their peers and the way they thought and rejected their flawed sense of reasoning. I always found it odd how the scientific literature always painted them as logical person's of impecable character however this is simply not the case. This is just a casual observation but it seems to me the Flock is always trying to paint the black sheep as white so they may be somehow included in their success but only after the fact.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

@Ernst

In any case the people who worship logic don't have any more real answers than anyone else
AC

that obtuse generalization is inaccurate



as a generalization, it is true, in specific, it is wholly inaccurate.




Most POO stinks and nobody will touch it much less anything else.

SOME POO (the petrified dino-kind) is worth quite a LOT and is polished into jewelry and proudly worn.



specificity is divinity.

[Ernst]

I can and have denied standard logic so obviously your assumption is incorrect.

Either that, or you are. In which case I would place my bet on the latter option.

In any case the people who worship logic don't have any more real answers than anyone else...

Is that an assumption or is there any hard evidence?
Also, when a group of people do a math test, assuming every one completes the test, every one has the same number of answers, but the one who can correctly apply math will have the most correct answers.

if you do the research on the personal lives of some of the greatest minds such as Tesla, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein etc. you would find some common attributes.
They were all out in left field, many used alcohol in excess, most did drugs and many were womanizers.

I actually have done so for Tesla and found that he most probably did not excessively use alcohol, nor did he do drugs, nor was he a womaniser....

In the rest of your post I read:
- you can not wield the tool of logic, so you create your own. Exactly conform what I said in my previous post.
- all great minds have "peculiarities", you wish to be among them, so you create yours.

If that is how you choose to live your life, you should certainly do so. Perhaps some day you will find something that no one else saw.

Good luck!

Ernst