Perfection

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Perfection

Post by analog57 »

Power is the ability to generate an effect.

An effect exists in degrees of greater or lesser, with respect to other effects[there is a perceived difference among effects].

The greatest possible effect can only be self generating, or self creating, because there is no greater effect.

If a thing is perfect then any segment of that thing is also perfect. But a perfect thing must also be an undivided whole - continuously connected. But perfection can only be recognized with respect to that which is less perfect. But then again, a perfect color[qualia...] can stand in contrast to another perfect hue, where each are both a perfect example of their respective realities. A perfect reality consists of informational quanta organized in such a way as to stand in contrast to another type of reality but they must also be attributes of their larger undivided wholeness, AKA their *meta-reality*.

Difference is asymmetrical, which would appear to imply an imperfection.

Difference is a relative measure though. So any imperfection is only a localized perception and not actually an imperfection in the absolute, or universal sense.

Therefore the perceived imperfections are part of the larger perfection. They are informational constructs, ultimately abstract, being self similar reflections and diversifications of the larger unity.
sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta

ADATs

Post by sevens »

Word.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

If a thing is perfect then any segment of that thing is also perfect. If any part of the whole is imperfect then it can be said that imperfection is the basis of perfection... A contradiction. Ergo, a perfect thing is continuously perfect in all aspects. Imperfection can only be a type of perception, being a relative and localized measure, due to a limited perspective. It must be an incomplete assessement of all necessary and sufficient conditions in the summation of all possible attributes for the totality of our holistically perfect existence. But each relative measure is actually a perfection with regards to itself being a type of information. Broken down into its most basic and self similar form, it is perfect. Which means that reality is ultimately abstract.

Therefore, the perceived imperfections are part of the larger perfection. They are informational constructs, ultimately abstract, being self similar reflections and diversifications of the larger unity. That is to say, perceptual reality is the information and all possible permutations and combinations of that information.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Who cares?

Faizi
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Perfection

Post by Beingof1 »

Do you know what Jesus did perfect?
He loved perfectly.
He did not hold back any caring or compassion, he abandon himself to be swept away in the current of agape.

Jesus looked at reality through the mind of the divine. Troubles vanished around Him, obstacles fell away, the lost became found, the sick became well, sinners became redeemed, and rough places became smooth.
Everyone around and within this consciousness begins to care with complete abandonment so that the heart lacking love/caring becomes enraptured into the experience of holy expression and state of being.

If you want to find one who is truly enlightened - look for the one that cares the most.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I do not believe that Jesus was perfect. In all honesty, I never read or heard anything remotely believable of Jesus that is remarkable. He was human. He lived. He died.

I do not believe that he died for my own or anyone else's sins. He died because he defied hypocrisy.

Since I am not much of a hypocrite, I do not require Jesus to save me from my sins. Belief in Jesus as savior is for the faint of heart and the ignorant -- the hypocrites.

I do not require Jesus to chase me from the temple. I do not go into the temple -- the churches of the idiots.

I face life on my own. I am responsible for my transgressions.

Faizi
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

MKFaizi wrote:Who cares?

Faizi
The possible nonuniqueness of the classical spacetime and
related classical nondeterminism suggests a possible origin for the
simulatory aspects of consciousness built in to the geometric
structure OF ...space-time.


A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software",
that is, to the information contained within the programming
of their brain.


Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural
numbers.


Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction
independent of the physical universe.


Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.


Some nostalgic "Conan the Barbarian":


Does Crom exist?


Conan: Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for
it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad.
Why we fought, and why we died. All that matters is that today, two
stood against many. Valor pleases you, so grant me this one request.
Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, ...the HELL with you!

[...]

Mongol General: We have won again. That is good! But what is best in
life?

Mongol Warrior: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcon on your wrist,
wind in your hair!

Mongol General: Wrong! ...Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
the lamentation of the women!

Mongol General: That is good.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Beingof1 »

MKFaizi,
I think you have me confused with fundies.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

The symmetric nonuniqueness of physical spacetime and the related quantum nondeterminism suggests a possible origin for the simulatory aspects of consciousness built in to the manifold structure OF ...space-time.

If coordinate independence must hold, then artificial coordinate "patches" are not really necessary. So a defined "point" on the space-time manifold, is actually a physical event.

Einstein emphasized that a single particle in a void could not have inertia, for there can be no inertia of matter against space, only inertia with respect to other matter[events]. It seems obvious that if a thing[totality of existence] can only refer to itself, then the primary alpha reference[event] is also the end-state omega reference[event] and all points in between.

Time invariance[the laws of physics] must hold for all points in the universe. Of course "thought" itself is clearly an emergent property of existence: very possibly instantiated by a teleological potential - where reality itself is quintessentially a self referential feedback "logic loop"
and the very building blocks OF reality are as J.A. Wheeler says, the acts of observer participancy. Also a form of self reference.

The present moment is perceived to be created and recreated constantly: analogous to continually opposing/juxtaposing reflective mirror images… originating via a Penrosian twistor space analogue. Heisenberg indeterminism provides both a resolution boundary and the invariant relational fabric for a translation between Planck scale space and our experiential reality. Indeterminate gaps between actualized moments provide the most fundamental degrees of perceptual freedom. Perception is necessary to bring about the continuous and yet also still discrete transition from possible to actual.

The word "symmetry" basically means indistinguishability under transformations. The highest level of symmetry would be the greatest level of indistinguishability, being tantamount to complete nothingness. An invariance under all possible transformations. The paradox of "something from nothing" is resolved because existence itself is our localized and relative perceptual distinctions, which are invariant under transformation at the higher levels of symmetry.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by DHodges »

analog57 wrote:Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.
What does "exists" mean in this context?
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I like Conan all right, too, but I read all of the works back in the late sixties.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Being,

What is fundies? I replied to the one who wrote the post about Jesus. That is you.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Time invariance[the laws of physics] must hold for all points in the universe
Who said? Why what logic? By whose law?

On what do you base this assertion? Do you have a basis?

Faizi
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

MKFaizi wrote:
Time invariance[the laws of physics] must hold for all points in the universe
Who said? Why what logic? By whose law?

On what do you base this assertion? Do you have a basis?

Faizi

A statistical symmetry holds for aperiodic waveforms that correspond to a substitution method for aperiodic tilings - which don't always have a rotational symmetry as we understand it. But in mathematical terms, when given any finite region R, that region appears in every tiling in a multiplicity of orientations, where the frequency of appearance in the variety of orientations are all equal. Basically, all translationally invariant probability measures on the space of all tilings are themselves invariant under a nontrivial subgroup of symmetry rotations. Yes, DQ's A=A .

The complexity of tilings occurs from the substitution via an iterative process, where the as yet unspecified invariants, hold for some set of rotations. The relations emerging from the subgroups are simply the symmetries of geometric invariants, i.e. the platonic solids.

So basically, localized distinctions are the causal sequence of translations and rotations with respect to *meta-causal* - symmetry invariants. The outcome is fixed. The possible iterations chosen by localized minds simply shuffle the "cards of life" but, ultimately, in the end, the house[Supreme Being] always wins.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by analog57 »

DHodges wrote:
analog57 wrote:Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.
What does "exists" mean in this context?
Yes, the law of identity...
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Beingof1 »

OK- I will answer.

MKFaizi wrote:I do not believe that Jesus was perfect. In all honesty, I never read or heard anything remotely believable of Jesus that is remarkable. He was human. He lived. He died.
So I take it you don`t like Jesus and that his life and teaching does nothing for you.
OK
I do not believe that he died for my own or anyone else's sins. He died because he defied hypocrisy.
That is certainly one reason that he died.
Since I am not much of a hypocrite, I do not require Jesus to save me from my sins. Belief in Jesus as savior is for the faint of heart and the ignorant -- the hypocrites.
And standing on the North American continent is a crutch - we should stand on our own.
I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is,
especially Christians.
I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians.

If you knew what sin and salvation are you might abandon yourself to Christ, after all he claimed he is the only one that can save you.
I do not require Jesus to chase me from the temple. I do not go into the temple -- the churches of the idiots.

I face life on my own. I am responsible for my transgressions.

Faizi
Did Christians hurt you and so you link the life and teachings of Jesus with the knucklheads that were claiming to be Christians?
This is obvious with your post.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

FIRE & BRIMSTONE

Post by Leyla Shen »

If you knew what sin and salvation are you might abandon yourself to Christ, after all he claimed he is the only one that can save you.
Bloody hell, you're sure beginning to sound like a fundie to me.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by DHodges »

analog57 wrote:
DHodges wrote:
analog57 wrote:Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.
What does "exists" mean in this context?
Yes, the law of identity...
You miss the point.

A set of numbers "exists" as a mathematical abstraction, which is different from the way a table or a chair exists as a physical object.

The CLAIM that every possible set of numbers exist "independent of the physical universe" is NOT an obvious truth (especially from a constructivist perspective). It's not even clear exactly what it means. If something is not in the physical universe, then what exactly is being claimed when it is said to "exist"?

The leap from that dubious claim to:
Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.
is based on confoundng these two senses of "exist" - as a real, physical object, and as a mathematical abstraction.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I have rarely heard anyone who knows what sin is,
especially Christians. I have rarely heard anyone who knows what salvation is, especially Christians.
I surmise from this statement that you consider yourself to be special; that you are privy to definition of sin and salvation that no one else can define.

I do not believe in either sin or salvation. I could not care less about your special definitions insofar as attempting to guess the substance of your special definitions. If you say that you know the true definition of sin and salvation, then, please elaborate.
If you knew what sin and salvation are you might abandon yourself to Christ, after all he claimed he is the only one that can save you.


I have not claimed to know and I do not know what sin and salvation are. I am not concerned with either. I have no intention of abandoning myself to anyone, including Jesus Christ. I have no interest in anyone saving me.

What makes you think -- from what pinnacle of pomposity -- makes you think that I or anyone requires saving? How do you know that I or anyone needs to be saved?

Are you Jesus?

If you are Jesus, then, I will tell you: Thanks, Jesus, but I do not want to be saved. I am happy to sink or swim on my own.
Did Christians hurt you and so you link the life and teachings of Jesus with the knucklheads that were claiming to be Christians?
This is obvious with your post.
The only thing that is obvious from my posts is that I am not Christian and will not be Christian.

How disgusting for you to presume that Christians have hurt me. No Christian has ever hurt me. That would be impossible.

What do you think? That I was molested by a preacher when I was twelve years old? For one such as yourself, such so called hurt would give you an easy out.

I have no hatred toward Christians. I am not religious but, if I were religious, I would be much more Muslim than Christian.

Why is it so difficult for Christians to accept other religions and beliefs? Why is it so difficult to accept that some humans do not lust after what you think is sacred?

I do not want to be saved. I think that salvation stinks.

You really need to get that through your head.

Faizi
sasakura
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:40 pm

Post by sasakura »

i agree with faizi...

butack on topic, you guys never brought up whether perfection is obtainable, unless i missed itbut i doubt that, so

So I ask of you: Is perfection obtainable?
-[Siren Asakura]-
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla Shen,
Bloody hell, you're sure beginning to sound like a fundie to me.
I have noticed such outrage at the teachings of Jesus in the last ten years, his very existence as a historical figure is questioned. It is not rational and might be powered by ignorance don`t you think?


MKFaizi,
I surmise from this statement that you consider yourself to be special; that you are privy to definition of sin and salvation that no one else can define.
I do not believe I am special - and there are hundreds that do understand.
If you say that you know the true definition of sin and salvation, then, please elaborate.
Sin is to be in an identity crisis - to not know who you are.
Salvation is to know who you are with crystal clarity.
I have not claimed to know and I do not know what sin and salvation are. I am not concerned with either.
"I do not believe that he died for my own or anyone else's sins. He died because he defied hypocrisy. " - Faizi

You have a strong belief about what you do not know and do not care about?
What makes you think -- from what pinnacle of pomposity -- makes you think that I or anyone requires saving? How do you know that I or anyone needs to be saved?
Because there is suffering that seems to be inherent in existence.
Are you Jesus?

If you are Jesus, then, I will tell you: Thanks, Jesus, but I do not want to be saved. I am happy to sink or swim on my own.
All that the reality of Christ`s teachings will do is point back to your own life and existence - this is what is so greviously misunderstood.
The only thing that is obvious from my posts is that I am not Christian and will not be Christian.

How disgusting for you to presume that Christians have hurt me. No Christian has ever hurt me. That would be impossible.
I do not require Jesus to chase me from the temple. I do not go into the temple -- the churches of the idiots.
Then why the outrage and rejection of anything related to Jesus? Why do you include all who attend church as idiots?

It would not be an easy out for me if some Christian hurt you.
I am trying to point out that you appear to have an ilogical contempt for Christianity.
Why is it so difficult for Christians to accept other religions and beliefs? Why is it so difficult to accept that some humans do not lust after what you think is sacred?
I have studied and participated in every religion that I have been able to. I have read the Koran BTW.

Every human being desires freedom from suffering and the craving for innocent bliss - that is just logic.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by analog57 »

DHodges wrote:
You miss the point.

A set of numbers "exists" as a mathematical abstraction, which is different from the way a table or a chair exists as a physical object.
If we are to accept that the law of identity is a universal "absolute" then the physical universe is beholden to it. Therefore a thing is itself. This means that a thing equals itself in the numerical sense.

Consequently, numbers govern our perceptual reality. The abstract contains the concrete. All possible existences are real in the platonic sense - being abstractions which are independent of the physical universe.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by DHodges »

analog57 wrote:All possible existences are real in the platonic sense - being abstractions which are independent of the physical universe.
Ideas considered in such a way - as independent of the physical universe - are not real. They are imaginary.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Perfection

Post by DHodges »

sasakura wrote:So I ask of you: Is perfection obtainable?
To decide whether it is obtainable, we'd first need to decide exactly what it is, no?

Still, it could be that striving after perfection is desirable, even if perfection itself is not obtainable.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Re: Existence of a mathematical abstraction

Post by analog57 »

DHodges wrote:
analog57 wrote:All possible existences are real in the platonic sense - being abstractions which are independent of the physical universe.
Ideas considered in such a way - as independent of the physical universe - are not real. They are imaginary.
[1.] An entity can exist in the understanding but not in reality

[2.] Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone

Invariant laws of geometry can exist in the understanding but their existence is also independent of the imagination. Their existence is necessary.

there is more to existence than the material.
Locked