Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 09:56pm PT
|
While other 'truths' may apply only to our species, these physical relationships do not.
Because they are transcendent. Most simply, A squared plus B squared equals C squared is a fundamental, universal, transcendent reality in this or any other galaxy. It remains whether you exist or not, whether our planet or galaxy exists or not and is part of a fundamental mathematical order ubiquitous and necessary to existence and ultimately to mind itself... and tell me whence comes this order? Whence comes this plan behind the construction of all that is?
And how can it (mathematical order) not be the predicate to mind and existence itself?
And ultimately why order and what is its source?
It is the idea that is the predicate to creation and the idea can only be a product of mind.
All of this relates to the mind since it is the task of humankind to interpret and symbolize that eternal matrix supporting the physical world.
Beautiful... when I spoke of the divinity of number this is exactly what I was referring to.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 12:07am PT
|
I'm pretty sure a decent mathematician could create a logical system where the Pythagorean theorem is quite different.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 02:27am PT
|
... and tell me:
 Why order?
Whence comes this order?
Whence comes this plan?
What is its source?
It is the idea that is the predicate to creation and the idea can only be a product of mind.
Great questions. But the universal-mind-behind-the-curtain hypothesis still ultimately seems more a product of looking out a dark cave entrance in fear hoping against all hope someone is in charge and that that someone isn't the boogeyman.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 07:21am PT
|
Without self realization no real answers will come nor answers will actually be fully realized.
Self realization comes first.
Modern method = no self realization at all.
Thus no real real answers with no full realization of answers.
Only theory, mental speculations with no ultimate conclusions.
Just keep guessing and keep saying in the future we will know.
Post dated check and mislead the owner (yourself) ....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:27am PT
|
The 'why all this order?' question may seem profound at first glance - until one considers the alternative. Only an empty universe is devoid of some form of order - and even that statement is questionable.
'Why not order?' is real question - one that answers itself, relegating it to the realm of nonsense.
As for 'the source' - well, that's a human construct reflecting an evolved human need, and therefore may be answered any way you prefer. Or not. It's really a 'why' question, but the universe is more of a 'how' kind of place. It's a big machine. Sorry if that's not enough for youz.
As for 'understanding who one is and why one is here' - welcome to 21st century narcissism and it's pointless pursuits. I mean, who cares? Others will decide for themselves 'who you are' easily enough. Just do your thang and STFU about 'finding yourself'.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:36am PT
|
Tvash -- "Self realization is a pointless pursuit.""
Tvash -- "No one even cares"
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:37am PT
|
Look what it's done for you.
I'll pass.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:39am PT
|
Tvash -- "Self realization is a pointless pursuit."
Tvash -- "No one even cares for self realization"
Tvash -- "Just do your thang and STFU"
Tvash -- Self realization is narcissism
Tvash -- All those whom ever went on such a path are narcissists
Tvash -- Thus even Buddha himself should STFU and never should have spoken
Tvash -- Largo should never have spoken and should STFU
Tvash -- Only a so called scientist should ever speak
Only Tvash should speak
Tvash is smart and sharp but missing intelligence .....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 08:54am PT
|
As for 'understanding who one is and why one is here' - welcome to 21st century narcissism and it's pointless pursuits. I mean, who cares? Others will decide for themselves 'who you are' easily enough. Just do your thang and STFU about 'finding yourself'.
Yes, who cares? Certainly not you with your hundreds of posts on this and the religion thread.
And yes, it's nothing but narcissism to wonder what your own position in the cosmos might be. Just think of the countless number of philosophers and theologians thinking and staring longingly into their mirrors... hopeless and pointless, best crawl back into bed.
Only an empty universe is devoid of some form of order - and even that statement is questionable.
What a remarkably assumptive, god-like statement.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:23am PT
|
How many of you have founded and become ordained in your own ministry - complete with a deacon, and performed the sacred right of marriage?
Suffer yourselves to come unto me when your amateur hour is over, my lost children. For the meaning you seek may be found in SingTFU.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
If we say that the inherent quality is "mass," what has mass, from what does mass emerge, what sustains said mass and why does it - whatever "it" is - have mass?
Fixed that for you...
[ P.S.: Mass is an inherent quality, not 'thing' - think m = E/c2 and gluons + quarks and you'll find that 'mass' and 'spin' are not so different with regards to the kind of thinking Largo is doing.
P.P.S. Largo, ask your rideshare buddies to account for the 'mass' of a proton... ]
Healje, you just dodged the hard question by rephrasing it so "mass" is an inherent quality. How about phenomenon that have no mass?
And Tvash, we accept that you are not of a mind given to introspection or the experiential adventures. That field is no more for everyone then music or math or wall climbing is for everyone. But ripping on stuf outside of your wheelhouse so compromises your credibility that no one takes you seriously. You are, in fact, the perfect canidate for a week long silent retreat.
An interesting aside that was mentioined earlier from someone is the idea that there is NO SOURCE for any person, place, thing or phenomenon in the world - this from a materialst who by definition is beholden to reductionism that claims we can reverse engineer all phenomnon back to physical causes, that is, a physical "source." The entire deterministic argument issues from the fact that all behavior is mechanistically sourced by objective functioning of material over which we have to control.
If in fact there is no "source" for anything, and mass is a property and not a physical thing, we are left to answer from whence does any person, place, thing or phenomenon arise; and "mass," if not a thing, is a "property" of what, exactly.
This is starting to get good... Finally.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:38am PT
|
Just think of the countless number of philosophers and theologians thinking...
And given the definitive yield and the now declining returns of the first 2500 years of such thought, particularly theological thought, we should expect what from the next 50? I mean, exactly what is new and exciting on the theological front beyond evangelicals racing ISIS back to the future?
...and "mass," if not a thing, is a "property" of what, exactly.
Exactly. Now you're asking the right question. Again, spin and mass are the same with respect to that "of what?" question.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
You know nothing of me, Largo, past what I've posted here - which doesn't jibe at all with your assumptive assertions. I haven't ripped on your journey at all - just your taking that ball and running way out of bounds with it into fields you know little to nothing about, as well as your somewhat less than enlightened behavior at times. Your mass discussion - a phenomenon that, lets face it, you know nothing about, provides the latest example. That it also doesn't seem to have a point, other than refuting a 'stuff or no stuff filled' model of the universe that most of us abandoned after childhood is beside the point.
You also have a habit of 'definition swapping' and 'out of contexting' - two of many stupid pet tricks of the debate world.
I would give your a rather low grade for 'wisdom' because of this tendency to shoot from the hip without much knowledge about what you're actually shooting at in comparison to the people in my life, but hey, that's just me. So far, I remain unimpressed by the results of your experiential journey, but my mind remains open to future developments.
Of the self proclaimed seekers - Werner, Mike - well, it's quite the line up. Don't get me wrong - I've read works by other seekers who provided some truly useful and profound insights to being. You guys just aren't in that crowd.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 10:40am PT
|
And given the definitive yield and the now declining returns of the first 2500 years of such thought, particularly theological thought, we should expect what from the next 50? I mean, exactly what is new and exciting on the theological front beyond evangelicals racing ISIS back to the future?
Let's see what have religion and philosophy done for us. Philosophical and theological notions yielded the enlightenment didn't they?... social concerns, actions based on those concerns from putting an end to the slave trade to universal health care. These are ideas that are born of a long history of evolving empathy the foundation of which is both religious and philosophical.
You're too ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course some religious ideas can be twisted into evil.
But then evil is just a human construct isn't it?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 10:44am PT
|
theological notions yielded the enlightenment didn't they? -Paul
"theological"?
lol!
These are ideas that are born of a long history of evolving empathy the foundation of which is...
Evolution.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 10:59am PT
|
Still wrapped around an imaginary rhetorical axle I see.
If, in fact, singularities exist with 'no physical extant' - so what?
If, in fact, the workings of the universe may be converted to relationships between 'pure energy' - again, so what?
It is what it is, even if it's kind of weird.
One thing's for sure - there will be math.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2015 - 11:10am PT
|
If, in fact, singularities exist with 'no physical extant' - so what?
-
So what? Granted, as you insist, I don't really know anything, but what you are saying you grouchy old fart is totally heretical to all the fundamentalist materialists in all the land who's entire world view is based on the religion of stuff, things, and causes/sources that prompt the people, places, things and phenomenon of reality. When you take away the mass and the material and the "thingness" - the Dingus' of the world will show their teeth and scream for their stuff, lest no-thing will claim them like quicksand.
Lastly, the whole silly notion of grading us on wisdom, thereby placing yourself in a position of objective arbiter, is a move so ham-fisted and psychologicalpoy crude it is not even lost on my dog. And this from someone who shows some little promose beyond a jughead "stuff" platform. Like I said, we out to chain you down in the Zendo for a month till you your thoughts finally got clear. I believe your have something to say once all the static exhausts itself.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2015 - 11:34am PT
|
Dingus, what you’re are asking for is impossible because we can only get hold of energy when it takes a form or renders a specific effect. And as my ride share partners are always saying, “Energy comes in a hell of a lot of forms.” For example (to quote a source), when energy is released in an explosion (most explosions) that energy mostly takes the form of kinetic energy (things moving and heat). Light is about the closest to being pure energy, but in fact it’s one of the several kinds of energy that isn’t tied up in matter. It’s “matterless,” sure, but that doesn’t mean that electromagnetic fields (light) are any closer to being pure than, say, gravity fields (another, very different, massless form of energy). But some form of energy without matter: Yes, that happens. So, energy can change from one form into another into another into another, etc., but the question remains: what is energy? And if it’s not “pure energy’ that shape shifts, then what IS it?
Dick Feynman, way back in the day, said is important to realize that “we have no knowledge of what energy ‘is’. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. Energy itself is abstract in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas.”
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2015 - 12:47pm PT
|
Will I be clear of Thetans?
Grouchy I'm not (OK, after the 10th hour in a car I may drift into Angry Bum mode) but you'll have to take The Reverend's Word for it. If you care. Which you probably don't. Rest assured - I'm good.
My experiential challenge for the season will be to row from the US to Canada in an engineless race - the qualifying stage for the Race to Alaska. The ocean is a formidable teacher, my children. We will not be continuing on to Alaska, however. Work, girlfriends, and all that rot.
We can 'understand' most things we encounter through symbology/analogy, and that's no mean feat. Mathematics is the only language specific enough to describe the nitty gritty. The moment one attempts to depart from it and into 'layman's terms' (ie - what IS IT?), the brush becomes to broad for the job.
Flagrant rephrasing of what Moose just stated? Probably.
In the meantime, DMT can wrestle with the concept of 'rest mass' like a monkey trying to fuk a football. Conservation of energy calcs and the like often require the energy state of a given system to be split up by energy type in just such a manner - nothing new under the sun there. What is new under the sun is that mass is a relationship between a particle and a field. Does the particle have 'mass' without the field? Well, the field pervades the universe, so that question makes as much sense as determining the rest mass of a unicorn.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!