Page 4 of 4

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:59 am
by David Quinn
Matt wrote:
I think the basic problem with the adding is that the word "add" has multiple meanings. Adding water to a puddle isn't the same as mathematically adding two numbers.
Sure, if we redefine the word "add" in a way that ensures every operation of addition will result in 1, then 1+1 will indeed equal 1, as would 27+45 and 960+736645. But it doesn't really mean anything, does it. It says nothing one way or the other about the truth of 1+1=2, as we normally define it.

From what I've heard, in quantum mechanics they can add two particles together and there's no telling what they'll get. It could be 1, 2, 3 or more particles. If objects could be added in the same way numbers are, then science could disprove mathematics, since "adding" would be a universal principle or something.
This won't happen. The mathematical logic underpinning 1+1=2 can never be undermined by scientific observation, as it is purely a definitional issue. Empirical data doesn't have a role to play.

If we do observe a situation as you describe, in which two particles are added together to form some other number, the only rational conclusion we can draw is that there are hidden physical processes at work which we are currently unaware of. It doesn't cast any doubt on the nature of mathematical truth itself.

This is proven by the fact that we already affirm the truth of 1+1=2 when we acknowledge there were two particles to begin with. The testing of 1+1=2 has already been performed from the outset and the truth has passed with flying colours. Now, the only issue left is what kind of energy is being added to the system, or subtracted from it, that allows the two particles to be transformed into another number.

-

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:12 am
by Matt Gregory
David,
DavidQuinn000 wrote:MG: I think the basic problem with the adding is that the word "add" has multiple meanings. Adding water to a puddle isn't the same as mathematically adding two numbers.

DQ: Sure, if we redefine the word "add" in a way that ensures every operation of addition will result in 1, then 1+1 will indeed equal 1, as would 27+45 and 960+736645. But it doesn't really mean anything, does it. It says nothing one way or the other about the truth of 1+1=2, as we normally define it.
We don't have to redefine it, it already has multiple definitions. That's what causes the confusion.

If we do observe a situation as you describe, in which two particles are added together to form some other number, the only rational conclusion we can draw is that there are hidden physical processes at work which we are currently unaware of. It doesn't cast any doubt on the nature of mathematical truth itself.

This is proven by the fact that we already affirm the truth of 1+1=2 when we acknowledge there were two particles to begin with. The testing of 1+1=2 has already been performed from the outset and the truth has passed with flying colours. Now, the only issue left is what kind of energy is being added to the system, or subtracted from it, that allows the two particles to be transformed into another number.
What are these processes? What type of energy are you talking about? Is it a charge? A photon? A graviton? What experiments were conducted? What equations did you use? I want primary sources! Heisenberg! Schrodinger! Einstein! Goedel!

I just wanted to talk about 1+1=2 and here you are doing physics!

I mean, who wants to go down that road?

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:43 am
by sevens
DavidQuinn000 wrote:Should I even bother? It's a waste of time, I know .....

seven wrote:
This new "universal adding principle" could be, the height of all wisdom.

What is this? A drug-addled thought? A whimsical fancy? Evidence of mental illness? An incoherent array of meaningless data?

I'm sure there is meaning there. It is not just a dog barking in the distance. There has to be something there. Has to be. Is there?

Zen Master Seven, miraculously unsure of the heights of wisdom, suddenly speculates that an as-yet-undiscovered mathematical operation could - possibly, perhaps, maybe - constitute - in a matter not yet explained - the height of all wisdom.

Well, there you have it. If only the enlightened sages and Buddhas in the past knew. It could have really helped them.

I'm sorry, seven, I'm interrupting. Please carry on with your poetic musings about the infinite mind and the like.

-
Math is a universal language, David.

Kind of like the Mind.

Fire

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:55 am
by sevens
You have become a stone Buddha.

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:55 am
by David Quinn
Matt,
We don't have to redefine it, it already has multiple definitions. That's what causes the confusion.
It's very easy for anyone of average intelligence to deal with multiple definitions of a word. We do it all the time with words like "run", "read", "eat", etc, without any problem at all. It's only when the spectre of truth looms on the horizon that this suddenly goes out the window and everyone miraculously starts having "difficulties" with it.
So clearly, what confuses the confusion is not the multiple definitions themselves, but people wanting to evade mental clarity and truth, which stems from the desire to keep everything as fuzzy as possible.

-

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:05 pm
by sevens
As the clock strikes,

1:55.

Genius

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:20 pm
by sevens
Or,

From a desire to express themselves, at an age, when they are still developing their mind, their own genius.

In time, arrogance does turn to air.

Takes time to purify years of sediment, especially when that sediment holds all types of ore.

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:33 pm
by David Quinn
sevens wrote:
Math is a universal language, David.

Kind of like the Mind.

"Kind of" ....? You're sure about that?

Do you think that the enlightenments of past Buddhas were somehow inferior and incomplete because they did not know about this as-yet-undiscovered mathematical operation?

Does the existence of "supreme, unexcelled enlightenment", as the Buddha called it, really hinge on an obscure mathematical matter?

I don't know why I am asking you these questions. I might as well ask that puff of air over there.

No need to reply.

-

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:26 pm
by Jamesh
David
James: There is a margin of error in everything.
David: One assumes, then, that this statement has a margin of error as well?


Here we go again, the little paradox game. Merely you bringing this up says that it has a margin of error. You are inadvertently saying that truth is subjective, as it is, because of the different perspectives we can take.

It is impossible for a conscious being to know ultimate truths, because ultimate truths are of the nature of a holistic picture, which we as humans can only do abstractly because consciousness causes us to limit the holistic vista to individual concepts and in doing this, by necessity, it loses what one could call ultimate.

On the other hand, a conscious being can truths that apply in all instances to almost 100% accuracy and those are the truths you believe are ultimate.

If it does, can it still have any meaning?
Yes, everything we experience has meaning. The experience will be used or discarded. Seeing as you are talking in ultimates, to what degree it means something to us is not relevant.

If it doesn't, can it still have any meaning?
It's meaning does not come only from what it is, but from how "what it is" forces reaction from our body and mind.

As you well know, physically all things are flawed, they must be in order to exist. All things coming from flawed material must thus also be flawed, including human ideas of truth and meaning. This does not mean that the flaws make your "ultimate truths" worthless, just because they are not ultimate. Close enough is good enough.

You know you are flawed, otherwise you wouldn't indicate that buddha's can always improve. Therefore, as you are flawed, your ultimate truths cannot be ultimate truths, but they can be very good approximations, and they are.

Me: Thinking truth is TRUTH is the error of taking a single viewpoint.
David: From which perspective are you asserting this?


For the error of a conscious viewpoint that cannot take in the totality, but said the above because he tries to see things from the perspective of "me" which delves into causes from an inside focus point outwards, and the imaginary perspective of looking at the same thing from the outside, looking at the totality of the thing in question.

The worth of truth is created by the observer. If people start thinking their truths are immutable NOUNS, like you seem to, and obsessively cling to those truths then they will cease to learn that there are more logical abstractions of truth out there than the set they currently have.

Is it true for all perspectives? Or just one of them?

It is true for all possible perspectives of conscious entities. It is not true from the perspective of The Totality, the ultimate perspective, the perspective of all knowing causes at the one instant, because such a perspective is not possible for an entity, although enlightenment does appear to revolve around the gaining of this perspective. It can be approximated using imagination and memory, so attempting to gain such a perspective is not pointless.


If you look carefully, you will see that "1+1=1" only works through sleight-of-hand trickery. What happens is that the 1's on the left-hand side of the equation refer to a different set of entities to that which is represented by the 1 on the other side. Because of this, the equation is invalid.

As a statement about the mathematical logic of 1+1=2, it has nothing to say. This is because it immediately invalidates itself by changing the terms of reference half-way through the process.

I was just pointing out that when we equate 1+1 to physical things that it will not always result in the same result. I am not saying that a margin of error does signifies that something shown to be always correct is wrong, merely other outcomes than those considered may be possible. The puddles example shows you that as you make your 1's broader more unintended interpretations can occur. In maths the 1's can mean anything can they not? As soon as you equate it to something physical a margin of error creeps in, as no actual physical 1 is ever exactly the same as another.

The thing is that you are defining it first as mathematical logic, putting it into that straight jacket. IMO, mathematical logic, unless it is applied, is pretty well just entertainment for the mind. What would 1 + 1 mean if the 1 was never equated with something physical - nothing. It would just be logic. You will now ask, Does logic then have a margin of error? Yes, it might - if mathematical logic will never be able to define the workings of the totality, as I believe you believe, then I guess it must, as "ultimate" logic would not exist.

The truth you find in the statement 1+1 is because you have the habit of defining it as mathematical logic and adding to the statement "One 1 must first be equivalent to another 1" for this statement to be always truth. But in terms of our total experience of using the calculation of 1+1 then what I pointed out was correct. 1+1 does not always result in the same truth and when we limit its definition to mathematical logic alone, the concept becomes meaningless.

It's very easy for anyone of average intelligence to deal with multiple definitions of a word. We do it all the time with words like "run", "read", "eat", etc, without any problem at all. It's only when the spectre of truth looms on the horizon that this suddenly goes out the window and everyone miraculously starts having "difficulties" with it.

So clearly, what confuses the confusion is not the multiple definitions themselves, but people wanting to evade mental clarity and truth, which stems from the desire to keep everything as fuzzy as possible


If it comes from dissatisfaction with the completeness of your truths, or your attitude to these truths, where is the harm. Do you expect us to cease philosophising about the ultimate just because you have a set of truths you believe to be ultimate.

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:47 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Jamesh wrote: As you well know, physically all things are flawed, they must be in order to exist. All things coming from flawed material must thus also be flawed, including human ideas of truth and meaning. This does not mean that the flaws make your "ultimate truths" worthless, just because they are not ultimate. Close enough is good enough
Jamesh, could you clarify:

Physcially as opposed to... what?
Flawed as opposed to ... what?
Close enough to ... what?

Something ultimate or a flawed concept again?

Doesn't this line of reasoning lead to the conclusion everything is perfect? What meaning could the word 'flaw' hold in a flawed context?

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:11 am
by David Quinn
James,
DQ: It's very easy for anyone of average intelligence to deal with multiple definitions of a word. We do it all the time with words like "run", "read", "eat", etc, without any problem at all. It's only when the spectre of truth looms on the horizon that this suddenly goes out the window and everyone miraculously starts having "difficulties" with it.

So clearly, what confuses the confusion is not the multiple definitions themselves, but people wanting to evade mental clarity and truth, which stems from the desire to keep everything as fuzzy as possible

J: If it comes from dissatisfaction with the completeness of your truths, or your attitude to these truths, where is the harm. Do you expect us to cease philosophising about the ultimate just because you have a set of truths you believe to be ultimate.

No, but I do expect the challenges to be of a higher quality than simply regurgitating the tired, old postmodernist scripts.

It's clear that your emotional make-up has difficulty accepting the direction that Truth lies in. That is understandable. Truth can appear very nihilistic and bleak from certain perspectives. But instead of addressing this issue in yourself and trying to see how you can adapt to the reality of Truth, you are trying to undermine the very path to Truth itself by making use of these external shallow arguments. This is evasion, pure and simple.

J: There is a margin of error in everything.

DQ: One assumes, then, that this statement has a margin of error as well?

J: Here we go again, the little paradox game. Merely you bringing this up says that it has a margin of error.

This is not a paradox game. Rather, this is a "spot the contradictions in the postmodernist scripts" game. It's quite fun. You should try it some time.

James, if you are happy with giving arguments that are self-contradictory in nature, that's your business. But I will always speak against it.

It is impossible for a conscious being to know ultimate truths, because ultimate truths are of the nature of a holistic picture, which we as humans can only do abstractly because consciousness causes us to limit the holistic vista to individual concepts and in doing this, by necessity, it loses what one could call ultimate.

On the other hand, a conscious being can truths that apply in all instances to almost 100% accuracy and those are the truths you believe are ultimate.

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. Truths are always 100% accurate, or not at all. There is no such thing as an approximate truth.

For example, the truth that Nature is not nothing whatsoever is 100% true. There is not the slighest bit of doubt about its truthfulness; there is not the slightest bit of falseness embedded in it. It is purely true, through and through.

It is also 100% true that our empirical models and theories will never embrace the whole of Nature. I wholly agree with you in this. So the question is, why do you, having arrived at this 100% truth, suddenly disown it by declaring that there are no such things as 100% truths? It's quite comical, really.

DQ: If it does, can it still have any meaning?

J: Yes, everything we experience has meaning. The experience will be used or discarded. Seeing as you are talking in ultimates, to what degree it means something to us is not relevant.
You're not understanding my point. You have presented what you think is an error-free statement about the way things are - namely, "there is a margin of error in everything". You have deliberately presented it as a conclusion which is final and dismisses all other competing claims of ultimate truth.

However, if this conclusion of yours was itself to contain a margin of error, then it would automatically cease to be an error-free statement about the way things are. It would lose all power to pontificate on the way things are. It would become a meaningless statement about the nature of reality.

Conversely, if wasn't to contain any errors, then the idea that "there is a margin of error in everything" would immediately become false. Being false, it would lose all power to pontificate on the way things are. It would again become a meaningless statement about the nature of reality.

In the end, you are being a hypocrite, James. You are effectively saying to the world, "All truth claims are uncertain and prone to error - except mine."

As you well know, physically all things are flawed, they must be in order to exist. All things coming from flawed material must thus also be flawed, including human ideas of truth and meaning.

This point is flawed, so I won't bother responding to it.

The rest of your post contains the same basic errors, so I think I'll stop at this point.

Except this, at the end:
The truth you find in the statement 1+1 is because you have the habit of defining it as mathematical logic and adding to the statement "One 1 must first be equivalent to another 1" for this statement to be always truth. But in terms of our total experience of using the calculation of 1+1 then what I pointed out was correct. 1+1 does not always result in the same truth and when we limit its definition to mathematical logic alone, the concept becomes meaningless.
Ideally, when 1+1=2 is applied to the physical world, it should be done intelligently. Then there will be no problems. The "problem" that you raise is a false one, created from a lack of intellence and misapplication of the equation.

Part of this intelligence involves realizing that 1+1=2 is indeed a mathematical truth. This means that you cannot chop and change the terms of reference half-way through. In its pure form, the "1" and "2" do not represent anything at all in the empirical world. There is nothing there that can be chopped and changed.

This purity and lack of empirical input means that the equation will always be true, in all situations. No amount of misapplying it to the physical world, and chopping and changing the terms of reference which have been artificially tacked onto it, will ever change this.

-

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:23 am
by Jamesh
Physically as opposed to... what?
Flawed as opposed to ... what?
Close enough to ... what?
Something ultimate or a flawed concept again?
Doesn't this line of reasoning lead to the conclusion everything is perfect? What meaning could the word 'flaw' hold in a flawed context?


Physically as opposed to “that which is infinite”, which can only be the core forces of the universe, not material things.

Flawed as opposed to perfect, as something perfect would be unchangeable. I accept that using the word ‘flawed’ was inaccurate - your point is valid. In reality nothing physical is either perfect* or flawed as those are words relating only to human values, which are irrelevant. By flawed I meant that all things are subject to change by other things and for other things to be able to change the thing in question must have structural flaws or weaknesses that allows other patterns to mix in with and change the things natural flow.

*except they are perfect in the sense that everything is determined so they must be perfect, that is they are perfectly formed from past causes. At the same time they are not 100% perfect because they are not permanent or infinite in themselves (and if one brings into the equation their interconnectedness with everything else and their need to flow, to move, to change to even appear to exist, then one could even say they are not even really temporary).

I can well understand why the QRS say that things do not exist, but I disregard this because we create existence just by being conscious. It is yet another QRS Gospel of Truth, that is not 100% accurate.

Unlike the QRS I believe defined things have a form of inherent existence. To me inherent does not mean permanent or self-caused. Things do not have the ability to create their own existence, but once they exist in any form then they have a form of power over other objects and this is their inherent existence.

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:46 am
by David Quinn
James wrote:
I can well understand why the QRS say that things do not exist, but I disregard this because we create existence just by being conscious. It is yet another QRS Gospel of Truth, that is not 100% accurate.
You are disregarding a straw man view. In other words, the view that you are disregarding is not mine, or QRS's, but a shallow version of your own making.

Surely, you cannot think that I am such a moron to be proposing the view that nothing exists at all? It has to be obvious, surely, that I am pointing to something far more subtle and profound.

Unlike the QRS I believe defined things have a form of inherent existence. To me inherent does not mean permanent or self-caused. Things do not have the ability to create their own existence, but once they exist in any form then they have a form of power over other objects and this is their inherent existence.
And what is the point of this definition?

There is a specific purpose to the concept of "things lacking inherent existence". It challenges the conventional notion of existence and helps break maya's spell upon the mind. It is instrumental to the mind becoming enlightened about the nature of Reality.

By contrast, the idea of things possessing inherent existence mirrors the conventional delusions that people already have about existence. It reaffirms their ignorance, strengthens their attachments, and keeps them in the dark about the nature of Reality.

Is that the plan, James?

-

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:17 pm
by Jamesh
Surely, you cannot think that I am such a moron to be proposing the view that nothing exists at all? It has to be obvious, surely, that I am pointing to something far more subtle and profound.

From my past arguments on this subject, there was a great deal of insistence from others that the statement is 100% valid, it isn't. I still think it is making something dualistic into a nonduality erroneously.

I think it allows people to dismiss you, if others are like me, it first forms a negative viewpoint of your views because of the duhh! 'of course existence exists' factor, and what occurs first affects future instances.

Unlike the QRS I believe defined things have a form of inherent existence. To me inherent does not mean permanent or self-caused. Things do not have the ability to create their own existence, but once they exist in any form then they have a form of power over other objects and this is their inherent existence.

And what is the point of this definition?


Probably just to state my objection to your use of the phrase "things lack inherent existence". As we are talking about ultimates I don’t like the inaccuracy. For a start it leads to unnecessary argument like this.

There is a specific purpose to the concept of "things lacking inherent existence". It challenges the conventional notion of existence and helps break maya's spell upon the mind. It is instrumental to the mind becoming enlightened about the nature of Reality.

By contrast, the idea of things possessing inherent existence mirrors the conventional delusions that people already have about existence. It reaffirms their ignorance, strengthens their attachments, and keeps them in the dark about the nature of Reality.


Yes it does. I can understand why you have to repeat them time and time again. You object to me muddying the waters for this reason – I could influence people who do not properly understand what you are trying to make them understand. I just want the statement to be more accurate, it is just not true enough for me.

Is that the plan, James?

I am not sure, I have certainly been tempted to put shit on the concept of ultimate truths and enlightenment because of the potential harm they may cause to others. I feel a bit of anxiety about hurting others needlessly by speaking my beliefs. While I agree more rationality by the human race is sorely needed, the impossibility of anyone reaching your ideals other than people already outside of society, makes me question your approach. I just don't feel that the outcome of such forms of wisdom will result in actions that save the human race from itself, it is just too significant a change. There is something about it that smells of possible regression or even decay into complete anarchy - particularly as those who only go part way could become more animalistic if they only get to the nihilistic stage and can dismiss societies bounds.

My plan is to extend what you have taught me and the only way I can do that is to look for exceptions or alternative ways of looking at your ultimate truths. I want to understand infinity to a deeper degree than you have been able (or perhaps been able to communicate). Perhaps this is stupid…lol…I wont know til I fail, but at present I am feeling more a sense of success than failure. I’m not sure if there is any more knowledge of the infinite that a human can understand – we’ll wait and see.

I just don’t like how some here seem to glorify truth. It is like they are replacing one set of attachments with another attachment. I think they are bound to be disappointed with what truth offers. In the end enlightenment seems a bit like being jailed by the Judge of Truth, the only way out of this jail is through complete submission to an imaginary God of Truth/Wisdom. It seems as limiting as it is freeing. It does free us from the constraints of society’s erroneous beliefs, but once we are somewhat free of such beliefs, we then begin to be straight-jacked by even tighter constraints caused by the need to be non-emotional and 100% accurate all the time.

It is true that I remain attached to emotion. It is my plan to continue to experience desires. I simply refuse to part with them and replace them with what seems to be a dry and boring Life of Truth. Such a life seems like an ego trip. “Ohh I am so f’n wonderful and wise because I know the Truth”. Desire-wise wisdom remains merely an entertainment for the ego, a way to please my mind like the way a scientist attempts to discover new things - although just like any set of past experiences, what I have learnt is changing the way I react to new experiences.

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:49 pm
by avidaloca
It's funny when the enlightenment of pure bliss that QRS speak of is thought of by others as a lifeless rut. Such a contrast.

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:02 pm
by Jamesh
"pure bliss", David said recently (to 7's or Bert) it wasn't of a sensual nature, so pure bliss is out.

I think the joy comes from a satisfaction of ego values, they satisfy it both by thinking of deep philosophical concepts and become satified by knowing how rational these things they have thought of are, and also by being faithful to truth by teaching others (although that is a two edged sword, mostly it gives them the shits).

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:03 pm
by avidaloca
David - have you referred to your enlightenment as bliss before? I'm sure you have.

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:06 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Jamesh wrote:
Diebert wrote:Physically as opposed to... what?
Flawed as opposed to ... what?
Close enough to ... what?
Something ultimate or a flawed concept again?
Doesn't this line of reasoning lead to the conclusion everything is perfect? What meaning could the word 'flaw' hold in a flawed context?
Physically as opposed to “that which is infinite”, which can only be the core forces of the universe, not material things.
Okay, but these core forces of the universe, being infinite, can we now call these ultimately true?

Then lets say we have a statement describing these core forces, or reflecting them 'close enough'. What you say is that these statements itself are limited since they are not the core itself but separated, dual, 'conscious'?

That's the same as saying that the finger is not the same as the moon. Old hat, I suppose.

Still not all the fingers in the world are always pointing to the moon, so the moon itself is a reference here to determine which fingers are and which not. Pointing to something near the moon (a 75% truth) is not helping, since in this example it might be clear that it's not that obvious so that our eyes would be attracted to it by accident. Why bother pointing out such a huge light in the sky in the first place if it were so easy?

To be able to make any determination at all one is bound to these perfect core 'forces' of the universe, even while expressing them will never capture the core as a whole; such expressions are not designed to do that. Their purpose is to point out. The fact that in many cases the point doesn't come across because of barriers of language, translations or because of pure ignorance on behalf of the ones who are observing, doesn't make the original point or finger waving inaccurate. One doesn't have to accept it or reject it as 100% true unless one has the means to verify it, like having a good view on the moon.