View Full Version : Mathematics

Ghislain

11-23-2016, 08:02 AM

Roger Antonsen explains how maths can describe the world and all that it encompases; it just takes

a different perspective.

Could it be that the difference between Alchemy and Chemistry is just a different perspective?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv9QDjw8GJk&feature=youtu.be

Ghislain

Edit: Changed video source as the first was badly edited.

zoas23

11-23-2016, 11:41 PM

A mistake I can't ignore: Leibniz didn't invent the system... it was simply a combination of the Ars MAgna of Llull and some ideas taken from Kircher (if you have the "Alchemy Forums Anthology" is is very well explained there in an article called "Richker".

Other than that, I have a HUGE objection to this idea:

https://people.umass.edu/klement/tlp/tlp.pdf

In short, following Wittgenstein, Maths are an "empty" tautological system... Gnosis (mysticism) is the ONLY way to understand the SENSE of the world. The question for the SENSE can't be answered by Logic or Maths.

If you don't like Wittgenstein, then I suggest another book that arrives to EXACTLY the same idea: https://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Cusa-God-Not-Other-Translation/dp/0938060384

Maths always relate one thing with other thing and this is what the video is doing... a marvelous theory of correspondences can be created (Leibniz and Kircher did it... and Llull gave the first steps). BUT... you need a "not-other" ("God" as to give it a name, though the name doesn't matter) that defines itself. If not, the question for the SENSE will never be answered.

As my dear Wittgenstein used to say: you can climb through the ladder of maths to the "top"... but once you arrive to the "top", you have to throw away the ladder, because the ladder won't make sense there.

The mathematical enthusiasm was known by Marcosian Gnostics and the Qabalists... and followed by Llull, Kircher and Leibniz.... I'm on Nicholas of Kues and Wittgenstein's side. the question for the sense can't be answered by maths.

Ghislain

11-24-2016, 10:58 AM

In short, following Wittgenstein, Maths are an "empty" tautological system... Gnosis (mysticism) is the ONLY way to understand the SENSE

of the world. The question for the SENSE can't be answered by Logic or Maths.

I have to disagree Zoas, I think it is all perspective; hence the need for an open mind to the things we are not aware of...yet.

I assume it is not just the mathematics of everyday life as the speaker mentioned, but that everything can be broken down into

systematic patterns, it may be the reason we are looking for patterns all the time.

We see the beauty in the patterns without ever being taught to do so in things such as the arts.

I see many people base their whole theory of "what is" on one person, as that person may indeed be a brilliant scholar and has

produced incredible works, but then throws a curve ball into the equation.

Chemistry as an earnest and respectable science is often said to date from 1661, when Robert Boyle of Oxford published The Sceptical

Chymist — the first work to distinguish between chemists and alchemists — but it was a slow and often erratic transition. Into the

eighteenth century scholars could feel oddly comfortable in both camps — like the German Johann Becher, who produced sober and

unexceptionable work on mineralogy called Physica Subterranea, but who also was certain that, given the right materials, he could make

himself invisible.

The above quote was taken from a Wikipedia article entry on Johann Joachim Becher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Joachim_Becher)who was a respected German physician, alchemist,

precursor of chemistry, scholar and adventurer, best known for his development of the phlogiston theory of combustion.

The phlogiston theory was held in respect for many years, holding back the true nature of science...people can make mistakes and the

more respected that person the more devastating that mistake can be.

Leibniz's papers were preserved by chance, because most of them dealt with affairs of state. When Leibniz died, his patron,

the Duke of Hanover, by then the King of England, ordered that they be preserved, sealed, in the Hanover royal archives, not given

to Leibniz's relatives. Furthermore, Leibniz produced no definitive summary of his views. His ideas are always in a constant state

of development, and he flies like a butterfly from subject to subject, throwing out fundamental ideas, but rarely, except in the

case of the calculus, pausing to develop them.

Source:Leibniz, Complexity and Incompleteness (thealchemyforum.com/PDF/Leibniz-Complexity-Incompleteness) by Gregory Chaitin

I like the idea of diversification; by looking in the same place for too long how much do we miss elsewhere?

All that said, my mathematical skills are not sufficiently honed to make an educated decision on this, I am going by gut feeling.

I wonder what the formula is for gut feelings? ;)

Ghislain

I have to disagree Zoas, I think it is all perspective; hence the need for an open mind to the things we are not aware of...yet.

I assume it is not just the mathematics of everyday life as the speaker mentioned, but that everything can be broken down into systematic patterns, it may be the reason we are looking for patterns all the time.

We see the beauty in the patterns without ever being taught to do so in things such as the arts.

I see many people base their whole theory of "what is" on one person, as that person may indeed be a brilliant scholar and has produced incredible works, but then throws a curve ball into the equation.

The above quote was taken from a Wikipedia article entry on Johann Joachim Becher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Joachim_Becher)who was a respected German physician, alchemist,

precursor of chemistry, scholar and adventurer, best known for his development of the phlogiston theory of combustion.

The phlogiston theory was held in respect for many years, holding back the true nature of science...people can make mistakes and the more respected that person the more devastating that mistake can be.

The person who wrote the quoted passage should be: 1- getting better acquainted with Becher and his works, including the Physica Subterranea (which in fact often deals with transmutational issues, and Becher was 100% convinced of the reality of the subject) 2- get more up-to-date with his historiography and with his acquaintance with the subject in general, since 1) distinctions between "alchemy" and "chemistry" (but not always under those exact terms) predate Boyle by a long time 2) Boyle himself had a kind of "alchemical" mindset (he in fact was totally convinced of the reality of the subject, having himself witnessed a transmutation of lead into gold by means of a sample of the Stone donated by an unnamed person's assistant, but according to Principe's research it very likely was the servant of the "adept" who called himself "Theodorus Mundanus", who had also convinced Edmund Dickinson of the same fact around the same time), and his attacks were not directed exactly at alchemy and its Philosophers' Stone but rather at the "vulgar chymists" (ironically enough for chemistry and its rather mistaken idolatry of Boyle as one of its supposed "precursors") and their theories and methods.

As for mathematics supposedly being able to explain "everything": Really? How can it explain that I have obtained small amounts of silver and what has all the appearance of being gold (and I mean through actual qualitative tests, not just superficial looks) from some metals and certain other reagents which did not contain these precious metals before being submitted to a series of "chymical" processes? According to the "scientists" who believe in such a "mathematical" universe, such things must be "impossible" and the "dreams" of what they uncritically lump under the umbrella term "alchemists", yet I know for a fact that it is no such thing but very real. Explain that one to me, Mr. Mathematicians!

Pure math = theories, speculation, an imaginary & idealized world. "Chymical" transmutations = empirical fact that can be demonstrated in the real world we live in. Accept no "guide" except EMPIRICAL FACTS, people. Give a wide berth to the nebulous world of theories and speculations, whether they masquerade under the guise of "science", "religion", "mysticism", etc. it does not matter.

zoas23

11-26-2016, 09:53 AM

I have to disagree Zoas, I think it is all perspective; hence the need for an open mind to the things we are not aware of...yet.

I assume it is not just the mathematics of everyday life as the speaker mentioned, but that everything can be broken down into

systematic patterns, it may be the reason we are looking for patterns all the time.

We see the beauty in the patterns without ever being taught to do so in things such as the arts.

I see many people base their whole theory of "what is" on one person, as that person may indeed be a brilliant scholar and has

produced incredible works, but then throws a curve ball into the equation.

Now here we have a funny situation!!!!!

Ghislain: Maths are the key to understand the Universe.

Zoas: NO, the SENSE of the Universe can't be answered by maths, but by Gnosis. <--- Mystic!

JDP: NO, Maths are a speculations, only the material facts count. <--- Empiricist!

I would call this situation, Ghislain, to be between a rock and a hard place (can't say if I'm the rock and JDP is the hard place or viceversa.... LOL).

I strongly suggest Nicholas of Kues and Wittgenstein. They both arrived to the SAME idea: Maths and Logic are limited by language, they are a language... and a tautological one, it's SENSE comes from something that is always outside of it. Yeah, we can find beautiful patterns using maths, but the SENSE of the existence of those patterns?

One of my favorite ideas from Wittgenstein is that HOW the world is, is not something mystical in itself... but it's mystical that it is (that it exists). "Mystical", according to him, would be ANYTHING that goes beyond logic and maths. He was strangely VERY close to the ideas of JDP... he said that we can have a philosophy of Empirical Facts... but that the SENSE of those empirical facts was never going to be found in those Empirical facts (due to an epistemological impossibility, not by our "non-advanced" or "precarious" knowledge). He did believe, however, in a mystical explanation, but found it absurd to mix mysticism and philosophy (mysticism was for him the limit of philosophy... and not rational, not logical, not mathematical).

A similar idea can be found in Nietzsche's "Gay Science"... the collapse of the Aristotelian dream of finding the ultimate truth through logic.

The problem is epistemological, not how "precarious" or "advanced" is our knowledge.

Source:Leibniz, Complexity and Incompleteness (thealchemyforum.com/PDF/Leibniz-Complexity-Incompleteness) by Gregory Chaitin

I disagree with Chaitin. I have to say that I LOVE Leibiniz.

Leibniz had 2 or 3 obsessions... and he accomplished some of them and didn't accomplished some others.

Ramon Llull created his Ars Maga... a somehow complex and still precarious system of logic, which involved some logical devices. (this belongs to the works by Llull and not pseudo-Llull, even if pseudo-Llull uses the system, though in a marginal way).

Athanasius Kircher got obsessed with Llull and developed the system with an extension of the logical rules and changing the system for pictograms. Kircher also worked in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus with a system that tried to decipher the Egyptian language (his works are awesome, but he completely missed the point, which doesn't mean that he wasn't incredibly clever, but assumed that the Egyptian alphabet he was using was based on pictograms and it was actually based on a phonetic system -other than that, he was mostly working with the Bembine Tablet, which is neither phonetic or Hieroglyphic and it's quite likely an attempt to show an Egyptian ceremony, but created during the Roman era, when the original alphabet had been lost).

Leibniz got VERY enthusiast with the idea and investigated a contemporary language that used pictograms (Chinese), but he didn't speak Chinese and his conclusions were quite absurd (due to his lack of understanding of the Chinese language -this specific book on the Chinese language fascinates me, even if it's absurd).

The GREATEST aim of Leibinz was to create an universal philosophical language (written and NOT oral) based on pictograms. He established the logical rules and systems (which were an expansion of the ideas of Llull, which were in turn taken from Aristotle)... he completed his logical rules and they are the basis of modern logic. The idea was to make VERY USER-FRIENDLY pictograms that could be easily understood by anyone... and they made sense if you knew his logical rules (which were the "syntax" of this language). His language, the Universal Philosophical Language (Characteristica Universalis) wanted somehow to fix the problem of Babel... an universal "Lingua Franca" that had the intention of being comprehensible regardless of your mother language. He did some works on that (i.e, "De Arte Combinatoria")... but never completed the project, maybe because it was impossible.

He did discover some ideas related to mahs using his logic (the advanced use of infinitesimals is one of the greatest examples, though several sources claim that Leibniz and Newton discovered them at the same time, what they did is to develop a system that already existed and was as old as the Eleatic School -i.e, Archimedes was VERY aware of the existence of infinitesimals).

I don't underestimate his discoveries (we can thank him for this forum, since it is not unfair to call him the "grandfather of computers"). He was a damn genius for sure.

And yet he was strongly convinced of the Aristotelian idea that the Universe is logical and that logic was the key to unveil ALL of its "mysteries". I can't share that point of view.

Going back to my first lines, it's funny for me, it's curious for me, how your idea was "attacked" (in a friendly way) by two persons who have very different points of view (JDP and me). So we have 3 ideas here, which is quite interesting actually.

Most debates involve an idea vs. the opposite idea... but here we have 3 absolutely different ideas, which makes things more interesting (I would dearly love to know what does JDP think about the infamous Tractatus of Wittgenstein, because I think that he MAY like it, but that his reasons for liking it would be quite different than the reasons I have -Wittgenstein believed that Philosophy can ONLY be based on Empirical Facts... and that the question for the SENSE was no longer philosophical, but mystical, and whilst he didn't dislike at all the "mystical approach", he also thought that NO philosophy can be based on mysticism, that it was even "atrocious" to even say or write something about mysticism, because it exists beyond the realms of languages -i.e, logic, maths, our oral languages, etc).

A MARVELOUS movie on the subject (even if it has several mistakes in it's theory, though it's an "artistic license" and that' fine for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oxford_Murders_(film)

You can find a "JDP", a "you" and a "me" in that film (our 3 different points of view). It's not about alchemy, it's about logic, maths and Wittgensein.

Awani

11-26-2016, 01:18 PM

JDP: NO, Maths are a speculations, only the material facts count. <--- Empiricist!

I'm sorry but if this is an actual view point I am amazed. Material facts and science is for the most part (if not always) based on math. So this statement is the most contradictory I have ever heard. This forum should be deleted in full based on this statement alone (if it truly was said and believed).

Ghislain: Maths are the key to understand the Universe.

Zoas: NO, the SENSE of the Universe can't be answered by maths, but by Gnosis. <--- Mystic!

JDP: NO, Maths are a speculations, only the material facts count. <--- Empiricist!

dev: the language of the mystical is music, and music is math and spirit in unity

:cool:

Ghislain

11-26-2016, 03:43 PM

Interesting Zoas, but the link didn't work...found it though...The Oxford Murders (film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oxford_Murders_(film))

I shall reply once I have watched it :)

Ghislain

Ghislain

11-26-2016, 06:50 PM

Watching The Oxford Murders, I can see that there may appear to be many random

variables to stop one finding the absolute truth, but is that just an inadequacy of our

calculation...is anything truly random?

If it were possible to create a super computer that contained every bit of information in

existence and calculate instantaneously, would it be possible to predict with certainty

when I will get up off my seat and make a cup of tea.

I would say yes, because for every reaction the must be a preceding action; there has

to be something that triggers me to feel like making a cup of tea.

Obviously we believe we cannot know everything, but if we were a very advanced

computer simulation, then that computer would have all the data. Like in a multiplayer

computer game where you change something in one screen and move onto another

then another player moves into the previous screen and sees the changes you made;

they are stored.

I strongly suggest Nicholas of Kues and Wittgenstein. They both arrived to the SAME

idea: Maths and Logic are limited by language, they are a language... and a tautological

one, it's SENSE comes from something that is always outside of it. Yeah, we can find

beautiful patterns using maths, but the SENSE of the existence of those patterns?

I believe that all the mathematical formula that has been produced to date are just a

few of the subroutines of what is.

If you have a very large computer program and want to create a subroutine you first

need to do it in isolation giving it fake inputs to ensure you get the output you desire.

Once this new routine is up and running with the rest of the program it may add a lot

more complexity to the main program. I believe Maths is the reverse engineering of the

program into its stand alone subroutines.

It is like the guy in the OP film that created a language for tap dancing...the fake input

of the stand alone routine.

I am not suggesting for a minute that we will ever have a full breakdown of what is, but I feel

that it is all there for those that want to find it...nothing mystical, just a mountain of work.

Perhaps Alchemy is the discovery of glitches in the system; are Alchemists hackers? ;)

Edit: on the point of who invented/discovered calculus, does it matter, it was invented/discovered.

Ghislain

Andro

11-26-2016, 07:23 PM

Are Alchemists hackers?

Yes.

I'm sorry but if this is an actual view point I am amazed. Material facts and science is for the most part (if not always) based on math. So this statement is the most contradictory I have ever heard. This forum should be deleted in full based on this statement alone (if it truly was said and believed).

Huh? Since when can pure (i.e. abstract) math explain things like the biological facts we are all familiar with? Or the chemical facts. Or even the physical facts. Show me a purely mathematical explanation of something like gravity, for example, that actually makes sense. Math as a tool to aid the sciences (in things like measuring, for example) is perfectly valid, but by itself, in its "pure" form, is pure speculation based on abstractions which are NOT the real world we live in.

zoas23

11-27-2016, 12:34 AM

Huh? Since when can pure (i.e. abstract) math explain things like the biological facts we are all familiar with? Or the chemical facts. Or even the physical facts. Show me a purely mathematical explanation of something like gravity, for example, that actually makes sense. Math as a tool to aid the sciences (in things like measuring, for example) is perfectly valid, but by itself, in its "pure" form, is pure speculation based on abstractions which are NOT the real world we live in.

I like the fact that we agree here and we come from the two positions which are very different. I can't help quoting my beloved Wittgenstein:

6.1. The propositions of logic are tautologies.

6.11 The propositions of logic therefore say nothing. (They are the analytical propositions.)

6.111 Theories which make a proposition of logic appear substantial are always false. Once could e.g. believe that the words "true" and "false" signify two properties among other properties, and then it would appear as a remarkable fact that every proposition possesses one of these properties. This now by no means appears self-evident, no more so than the proposition "All roses are either yellow or red" would seem even if it were true. Indeed our proposition now gets quite the character of a proposition of natural science and this is a certain symptom of its being falsely understood.

6.113 It is the characteristic mark of logical propositions that one can perceive in the symbol alone that they are true; and this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of logic. And so also it is one of the most important facts that the truth or falsehood of non-logical propositions can not be recognized from the propositions alone.

6.12 The fact that the propositions of logic are tautologies shows the formal -- logical -- properties of language, of the world.

That its constituent parts connected together in this way give a tautology characterizes the logic of its constituent parts.

In order that propositions connected together in a definite way may give a tautology they must have definite properties of structure. That they give a tautology when so connected shows therefore that they possess these properties of structure.

6.121 The propositions of logic demonstrate the logical properties of propositions, by combining them into propositions which say nothing.

This method could be called a zero-method. In a logical proposition propositions are brought into equilibrium with one another, and the state of equilibrium then shows how these propositions must be logically constructed.

6.122 Whence it follows that we can get on without logical propositions, for we can recognize in an adequate notation the formal properties of the propositions by mere inspection.

6.1222 This throws light on the question why logical propositions can no more be empirically confirmed than they can be empirically refuted. Not only must a proposition of logic be incapable of being contradicted by any possible experience, but it must also be incapable of being confirmed by any such.

6.124 The logical propositions describe the scaffolding of the world, or rather they present it. They "treat" of nothing. They presuppose that names have meaning, and that elementary propositions have sense. And this is their connexion with the world. It is clear that it must show something about the world that certain combinations of symbols -- which essentially have a definite character -- are tautologies. Herein lies the decisive point. We said that in the symbols which we use something is arbitrary, something not. In logic only this expresses: but this means that in logic it is not we who express, by means of signs, what we want, but in logic the nature of the essentially necessary signs itself asserts. That is to say, if we know the logical syntax of any sign language, then all the propositions of logic are already given.

6.2 Mathematics is a logical method.

The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo-propositions.

6.21 Mathematical propositions express no thoughts.

6.22 The logic of the world which the propositions of logic show in tautologies, mathematics shows in equations.

I like it a lot how we agree here even if our points of view are very different (I like "mystical" explanations of the universe, you like "empirical" explanations)... but we both agree that maths and logic are a "void system" that only talks about itself. An abstraction that demonstrates itself and nothing else. An "artifice" that analyzes itself, rather than the world. Of course that maths CAN be used to measure. We have 4 apples and we want to divide them in equal parts... 2 apples for you, 2 apples for me, that's obvious.

But when it comes to the two obvious results that a proposition can have ("true" and "false"), then the only true thing is that pure maths are talking about "nothing" (and not even a mystical "nothing", but a tautological nothing).

Ghislain

11-27-2016, 03:55 PM

Huh? Since when can pure (i.e. abstract) math explain things like the biological facts we are all familiar with?

Why are we only talking about pure maths here? There is also applied maths.

I ask myself the same questions as you are asking here JDP, but I don’t know enough about

Mathematics to come up with an informed answer. However I don’t dismiss what I cannot

understand and try to keep an open mind.

Below is a PDF on the subject of Maths & Biology, I have not read it myself, it is just to show that

information is out there if one chooses to look. Even so that does not make anyone right or wrong,

it just goes to show how people can have misconceptions because of the vast amount of data

available.

What Is Mathematical Biology and How Useful Is It? .PDF (http://www.ams.org/notices/201007/rtx100700851p.pdf)

...Or the chemical facts.

Mathematical Chemistry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_chemistry) Wikipedia.

...Or even the physical facts.

Mathematical Physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics) Wikipedia.

Show me a purely mathematical explanation of something like gravity, for example, that actually makes sense.

In mechanical engineering the “mathematical expression for gravity is Gf=G(m1.m2)/r^2, where m1

and m2 are the two bodies being used for the calculation, big G is the gravitational constant 6.67300

× 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which Newton came up with; don’t ask me how ;), and r is the radius

distance, which is taken from the centre of m1 to the centre of m2; hence a very weak force and

diminishes rapidly over distance as it is an inverse square. There is gravitational force between any

objects, but it takes a large mass like a planet before the force can be detected without specialised

equipment.

That equation has been used to plot the orbit of planets and to calculate a planets mass and has

worked well so far. This force has even been used to catapult probes through space.

Below is a possible theory of the Higgs Field and Gravity; again I haven’t read the article, but I am

sure there are many articles out there on the subject.

Higgs_Field_and_Quantum_Gravity (http://www.academia.edu/4158863/Higgs_Field_and_Quantum_Gravity) academia.edu

Math as a tool to aid the sciences (in things like measuring, for example) is perfectly valid, but by itself, in its "pure" form, is pure speculation based on abstractions which are NOT the real world we live in.

Many times throughout history what was once just theory has been put into practice and physical

results have been achieved, which without that theory would not have been possible.

Just because we don’t know the mathematical equations to explain all of reality doesn’t mean it

cannot be done, it just means it hasn’t been done...yet.

Ghislain

Ghislain

11-27-2016, 04:13 PM

I still disagree with you Zoas, and it is for this reason...we dwell in a mystical place, I agree with that and Wittgenstein, god bless him ;), has

tried to look at everything only from that angle.

We exist in two realms and I have experienced both realms (in my opinion though others may disagree) and from one I can totally agree with you, but from the other, being this

one we are conversing in now I don't. There are rules and they are mathematical, as this world is a fabrication from the mystical using

Mathematics.

The word "Tautology" according to the Miriam Webster Dictionary says...

Tautology

1 a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word, b : an instance of tautology

2 : a tautologous statement

Could that be applied to your list above?

For those of a religious disposition perhaps we should call it Sacred Mathematics ;)

Edit: I think this is why Dev was having trouble explaining to JDP why he cannot shoot himself in the head...even so knowing it wouldn't matter if he did.

Ghislain

Awani

11-29-2016, 12:20 AM

I think it is pretty simple.

God (call it what you will) created evolution. Or in other words "God" created the algorithm that our universe is based on. So yes the universe - and even magic - is all math, and yes this calculation/algorithm was created by a "supernatural" (although really just natural) force that monkey people with clothes call God. So this is why all sides of this thread are correct, except in the part where they think the other part is incorrect. LOL.

But like any algorithm or code it can be hacked, which means that it is not absolute. Nothing is absolute except The Absolute, which is what those stupid apes call God. I prefer the term Divine Mystery or the Light (but the name is irrelevant).

This is why religion and science, with the help of spirituality, will one day merge into a unity called: the bleeding fucking obvious state of affairs ;)

In my humble opinion.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/Jesus-computer_zpsjqvf7vqu.jpg

Praise Jesus.

:cool:

Good thread. zoas23 is correct in asserting that an axiomatic system cannot, as it were, "reach outside of itself," (cf Goedel, Wittgenstein, Chaitin) yet the "mystical" (or as I'd prefer, the "Real") is frequently discussed in analogies drawn from mathematics (Pythagoreans, neo-Platonists, Cusanus, kabbalists.) No fixed, sound axiomatic system can encompass the world.

A book which has given me a lot of food for thought over the years regarding this issue is the Laws of Form of George Spencer-Brown (recently deceased) which begins with the empty page as representative of the void. Distinctions are drawn according to simple rules, the system claims to be the most primitive possible and it may well be. Spencer-Brown also addresses paradoxical truth values and shows how they may be dealt with coherently. There is a great deal of secondary literature relating to this book, much of it critical and much perhaps over-enthusiastic. Personally, after re-reading it closely, I feel it is a very insightful book indeed.

Thomas J MacFarlane has some pertinent essays:

http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_play.html

http://www.integralscience.org/lot.html

Mathematics might be usefully thought of as the study of equality, even when examining inequalities or paradoxical statements, equality has not been dispensed with for we must, I think you will agree, employ equality at a deeper level to reason coherently about these topics. And whence our sense of equality, but from the Supreme Identity (tawhid, "hen to pan") which, if as of now unrealized in fullness, is nevertheless at all times the fact?

Coleridgean

11-30-2016, 04:36 AM

"In a long-brief Dream-life of regretted Regrets I still find a noticeable Space marked out by the Regret of having neglected the Mathematical Sciences. No week, few days, pass unhaunted by a fresh conviction of the truth involved in the Platonic Superscription over the Portal of Philosophy, ... But surely Philosophy hath scarcely sustained more detriment by its alienation from Mathematics" - Coleridge

Consider that John Dee believed the universe began with the idea of a Point, followed by the idea of a Line, and then a Circle, and then the intermarriage of these to yield the primary symbolic components of Dee's Monad, then less abstract forms, and finally the real world.

Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.8 Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.