PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: LARAGORN on March 16, 2007, 01:19:56 am
-
I am going to share a discussion from another forum, simply because brain food is yummy ;)
The views you are going to read are that of an interesting individual who has a firm understanding of the LOA (law of attraction) and a unique way of explaining it. I will post a bit at a time so we can discuss it, if any are interested that is.
Andrew;
First let me state, that the only Law in the universe, IS the Law of Attraction. Every other "law" we've managed to experience is purely a result of the first law. We wanted it, and thus we got it. Think about how science operates for a moment. A theory (an imagined scenario of "how things work" is developed within the mind of a scientist), then that scientist goes about trying to "prove" whether the theory is right or wrong. The universe mean time is doing everything it can to make the theory right, assuming of course the scientist is happy about being recognized as the finder of this great new model of the universe. Once the scientist allows the theory into existence, he shares it with other scientists that mull it over and imagine the possibilities, and then they collectively allow or disallow the new theory, usually based on ego and self gratification. Even though a scientist will argue that it was all very serious work, held up to the standards of the scientific principle. Which it may or may not have been. The point being, it was the scientists that created the “law” in the first place. Once the scientists collectively allow a new theory into existence, they go around convincing everyone that it's true. Since most people assume the scientists know what they are talking about, they accept the new reality without question or regard for the consequences. It's all Good don't get me wrong. It's just not what most people realize is going on. So! What does that mean for the rest of us. It means that everything you think you know about how the physical world works is completely YOUR CHOICE. The unified field theory equation that I will be presenting shortly proves once and for all that the answer to all math questions is 1. It proves that all things are 1. It proves that 1 equals any and all other numbers, including 0, and negative 1. It proves that math is a flawed model of the universe, and thus should be banned from this day forward. I am so appreciative of the positive energy I feel at the cheer of glee coming up from all children past, present, and future that all math classes will be discontinued. The other great news is that if someone ever asks you a math question you can show your mathematical genius by answering the question, before they finish the telling of it, as undeniably 1. I will start by stating the unified field theory equation in it's simplest and most pure state. 1? Without explanation or “proof”, that statement is meaningless to you now. You will quickly come to realize the beauty, simplicity, and shear ecstatic bliss, that this is mathematical proof of the Law of Attraction. 1 represents itself. It is the familiar numero uno digit that you are aquainted with. ? is a new mathematical operator that I refer to fondly as the “strange operator”. More to come, ahhh, you're going to Love this, Andrew
Ok, I'm back. Source decided to give me a much needed week of appreciation. I'm so thankful Source loves us as beyond comprehension. Where were we... hmmmm... Ah, yes. I had just stated the equation "1?". This is the simplified form of the equation "E = E + 1". Assume that E represents infinity. Modern mathematics supports the concept that adding any finite number to an infinity still leaves you with infinity. In other words, finiteness is so small compared to infinity that adding anything finite to the infinite has no effect on the infinite. This also applies to taking a finite number away from an infinite source. What I want to do here more than anything, is to demonstrate to you that math is just a language we use to “attempt” to model the physical universe. Math is no more true than any other thought construct we've created. All thought constructs or belief systems are built upon assumptions. Assumptions are thoughts we choose to be true although we cannot prove them one way or the other. Math is no different. Math has assumptions that cannot be proven. The main assumption of math is the concept of equality, the “=” operator. If I write, 1 = 1. Most everyone will say, “Oh, yes, that is definitely true.” I say, “Within math, it is true, because we choose to believe it is true. However! There is no example of equality in nature, so how can math be used as the fundamental measure of understanding physical reality?” Here's my challenge. Find me any two things in nature that are equal. If you can manage to demonstrate two things that are truly equal in every way, I'll demonstrate you have the same thing from two different perspectives. If you have the same thing from two different perspectives, then you don't have two things that are equal. Life is not about knowing how things works, it's about choosing how you want life to work. Choose wisely. More to come, Andrew p.s. Math is a useful tool, and allows us to do some amazing things. Math is good, but it is not God. Andrew
-
in the end I think 1 = 0 ... well according to are math lol ... pretty bad isn't it.
-
Math is good, but it is not God. Andrew
I agree, it exists, doesn't it :P
So far I don't think he's really explained anything about the law of attraction, more argued that math is a concept, which I believe everybody agrees with. So, there is not too much to discuss.
All the same, looks like it will turn out into something quite interesting, can't wait until you post more.
-
Before replying, I would like to link to an interesting article I found using google that points some interesting things on mainstream "science":
Why Science is Failing (http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/whysci.htm)
A theory (an imagined scenario of "how things work" is developed within the mind of a scientist), then that scientist goes about trying to "prove" whether the theory is right or wrong. The universe mean time is doing everything it can to make the theory right, assuming of course the scientist is happy about being recognized as the finder of this great new model of the universe. Once the scientist allows the theory into existence, he shares it with other scientists that mull it over and imagine the possibilities, and then they collectively allow or disallow the new theory, usually based on ego and self gratification
As any mainstream group, scientifical mainstream "truths" exist to be questioned and may be wrong while the "fringe theory" everybody ridicules is right. Just because someone named Occam said a simpler theory is possibly closer to truth, we shouldn't assume that, the simplicity part of the razor is just used for the sake of pragmatism. Today mainstream laughs at parapsychology, even though some few people try to make a way of gathering evidence of its existence in the best scientifical way possible in the middle of new-age BS(the main contributors to the view the ridiculousness on such studies), but as psychology, it is not something easy to measure and analyze on the traditional scientific sense as physics. Yesterday mainstream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) ridiculed(and killed) those who believed the Earth was round and turned around the sun. Can you measure and study in the typical scientifical sense feelings, ideas or the human self-awareness? No, but does it mean they don't exist?
Even though a scientist will argue that it was all very serious work, held up to the standards of the scientific principle. Which it may or may not have been. The point being, it was the scientists that created the “law” in the first place. Once the scientists collectively allow a new theory into existence, they go around convincing everyone that it's true. Since most people assume the scientists know what they are talking about, they accept the new reality without question or regard for the consequences.
I guess few uphold an agnostic point of view in both religion and science. Newton's laws of physics for example, are they appliable for situations of particles moving on relativistic speed? Well, before relativity existed, any particle on movement would always be subjected to those laws. Science != Truth, specially knowing that our scientifical knowledge is pretty limited, and then belief systems come to fill such gaps, for better or(usually) for worse. Who knows if in year 2500 several of the current scientifical theories will be obsolete? Perhaps the sciences of the future will laugh at the currently employed "scientific method" or at the mainstream "science" of nowadays.
It's all Good don't get me wrong. It's just not what most people realize is going on. So! What does that mean for the rest of us. It means that everything you think you know about how the physical world works is completely YOUR CHOICE. The unified field theory equation that I will be presenting shortly proves once and for all that the answer to all math questions is 1. It proves that all things are 1. It proves that 1 equals any and all other numbers, including 0, and negative 1. It proves that math is a flawed model of the universe, and thus should be banned from this day forward. I am so appreciative of the positive energy I feel at the cheer of glee coming up from all children past, present, and future that all math classes will be discontinued. The other great news is that if someone ever asks you a math question you can show your mathematical genius by answering the question, before they finish the telling of it, as undeniably 1. I will start by stating the unified field theory equation in it's simplest and most pure state. 1? Without explanation or “proof”, that statement is meaningless to you now. You will quickly come to realize the beauty, simplicity, and shear ecstatic bliss, that this is mathematical proof of the Law of Attraction. 1 represents itself. It is the familiar numero uno digit that you are aquainted with. ? is a new mathematical operator that I refer to fondly as the “strange operator”.
The possibility that every single matter, every tiny bit of existence on the Universe is a part of One single element, if proved, would confirm such theory. If everything is One, and One is everything, but they are always One, E = E + 1 . Still from a pragmatist point of view, such claim is fully useless for calculating expenses, accounting resources among every other practical application of nowadays math and wouldn't be appliable for smaller matter as well, in the same way relativistic physics only apply to particles nearing the speed of light.
Ok, I'm back. Source decided to give me a much needed week of appreciation. I'm so thankful Source loves us as beyond comprehension. Where were we... hmmmm... Ah, yes. I had just stated the equation "1?". This is the simplified form of the equation "E = E + 1". Assume that E represents infinity. Modern mathematics supports the concept that adding any finite number to an infinity still leaves you with infinity. In other words, finiteness is so small compared to infinity that adding anything finite to the infinite has no effect on the infinite. This also applies to taking a finite number away from an infinite source. What I want to do here more than anything, is to demonstrate to you that math is just a language we use to “attempt” to model the physical universe. Math is no more true than any other thought construct we've created. All thought constructs or belief systems are built upon assumptions. Assumptions are thoughts we choose to be true although we cannot prove them one way or the other.
I can't agree with that, how many fingers does an average human being have @LARAGORN? Mathematics is the science that is most closer to our logic reasoning, but anyway there is a possibility we are wrong, but the quote from "Nineteen Eighty-four" on my sig gives a hint on the importance of logic and on the way it is usually defiled by political/social/cultural/religious "truths".
Math is no different. Math has assumptions that cannot be proven. The main assumption of math is the concept of equality, the “=” operator. If I write, 1 = 1. Most everyone will say, “Oh, yes, that is definitely true.” I say, “Within math, it is true, because we choose to believe it is true. However! There is no example of equality in nature, so how can math be used as the fundamental measure of understanding physical reality?” Here's my challenge. Find me any two things in nature that are equal. If you can manage to demonstrate two things that are truly equal in every way, I'll demonstrate you have the same thing from two different perspectives. If you have the same thing from two different perspectives, then you don't have two things that are equal. Life is not about knowing how things works, it's about choosing how you want life to work. Choose wisely. More to come, Andrew p.s. Math is a useful tool, and allows us to do some amazing things.
One, as the numeric representation of quantity, logically equates itself to the same numeric representation of quantity of one, One as a certain object does not equate to One as another object. Still this does not bring down mathematic's logic, only thing that could do it(not on the reality of science, but on the reality of thought control) would be IngSoc. 1 != 1 ; 2 + 2 = 5
The current mathematic model is much more useful than the E = E + 1 as well.
Math is good, but it is not God.
Yes, they are definitively different concepts, math is based on a fully logical approach to general quantification of objects, things, etc that is not only logically proven by our own senses and by our brain logical thinking, but also fully useful to reality. While the concept of a "God" usually is based on mysticism, dogmas and "Words of God/Gods" filled with logical fallacies and outrighteously absurd "truths", and that served mankind pretty well with Jihads, Crusades, slaughters, stagnation among many other attrocities and mistakes commited in the name of a god. Of course these things don't apply to Deism, but still there is no way to really prove that a god exists, as there is no way to prove a god doesn't exist either.
-
LARAGORN, I invite you to share this with your friend.
A theory (an imagined scenario of "how things work" is developed within the mind of a scientist), then that scientist goes about trying to "prove" whether the theory is right or wrong.
False. Theories are always tested and never confirmed. This is the nature of induction. Theories are only ever proven wrong. We keep theories which agree with what we know and that lead to new information -- until they're proven wrong.
The universe mean time is doing everything it can to make the theory right, assuming of course the scientist is happy about being recognized as the finder of this great new model of the universe.
Does this mean to say that the universe is a concious being capable of agency, or am I just tired?
The point being, it was the scientists that created the “law” in the first place.
Yes, however with material sciences there are certain standards and measure which are more or less "objective" and so the material sciences are set apart from the humanities.
Since most people assume the scientists know what they are talking about, they accept the new reality without question or regard for the consequences.
Irrelevant; if there is a theory you dislike, then attack it based on its weaknesses. It is wrong to say "People are gullible therefore everything is false".
It means that everything you think you know about how the physical world works is completely YOUR CHOICE.
Not really. There's the social factor (what you're taught) and there's the biological factor (evolution of the human brain). Both are limiting to "choice". Even then, what has been said so far does not bar human beings from being in touch with objective reality in a real sense.
The unified field theory equation that I will be presenting shortly proves once and for all that the answer to all math questions is 1.
Of course. It just depends on how you define "1".
1 represents itself.
No... 1 represents whatever we arbitrarily say it represents.
"E = E + 1". Assume that E represents infinity. Modern mathematics supports the concept that adding any finite number to an infinity still leaves you with infinity. In other words, finiteness is so small compared to infinity that adding anything finite to the infinite has no effect on the infinite.
False. There are different kinds, sizes, and rates of infinity.
∞ < ∞ + 1
∞ < 2∞
∞/0 = 0
1/∞ > 1/[∞+1]
And so on. This is a universally accepted concept in mathematics -- infinity is a process, not a value, and you can have different infinities which are described by different rates.
Math has assumptions that cannot be proven.
They're called axioms and they're a fundamental if varying component of any logical system.
There is no example of equality in nature
False. F=ma. E=mc^2. And so on.
More examples of "equality" in nature:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=einstein+spooky+science
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=virtual+particles
Find me any two things in nature that are equal. If you can manage to demonstrate two things that are truly equal in every way, I'll demonstrate you have the same thing from two different perspectives. If you have the same thing from two different perspectives, then you don't have two things that are equal.
This is a play on words. "Equal" is being used to mean different things; sometimes the author is using one meaning of it, sometimes he is using another meaning of it. In other words, he's exploiting semantics.
-
Why Science is Failing (http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/whysci.htm)
Ahaha! "Scientific dogma!" That stuff is hilarious.
-
Interesting posts :) There were varying replies to Andrews posts, none as thorough as lordraleigh or as cynically closed minded as Zanzibar, most equated his thoughts to reductionism.
I can't agree with that, how many fingers does an average human being have @LARAGORN? Mathematics is the science that is most closer to our logic reasoning, but anyway there is a possibility we are wrong, but the quote from "Nineteen Eighty-four" on my sig gives a hint on the importance of logic and on the way it is usually defiled by political/social/cultural/religious "truths".
You have almost answered your own question. We all agree that we have five fingers because we have accepted that value to be represented by the number 5, and in our mind we believe it is true; but as you said we could be wrong.
Now to post the next few posts and I am going to add a few posts from others to keep the continuity. Enjoy ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-words numbers So, IS 1 REALLY the lonliest number? Tori
1 is the only number. Everything else is all in how you look at that 1. Andrew
-I am assuming this is in reference to the string theory. And Andrew, do you consider yourself a reductionist and have discovered the T.O.E.? If so....dish the goods:0 Tori math makes me angry. Tori
re•duc•tion•ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dksh-nzm) n. An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set: “For the last 400 years science has advanced by reductionism... The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole” (John Holland). ---- By that definition I'm not a reductionist. Instead of examinging smaller and smaller pieces, I just looked at the whole of it all. By understanding the whole, you then understand all the pieces. So... I think that makes me an inductionist. ---- in•duc•tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dkshn) n. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. ---- Yes, I believe I have the mathmatical equation to the T.O.E. Andrew
-Andrew...I KNEW you would challenge me on the "reductionist" comment. I enjoyed your response:) Now, you thoughts on Aca cords? And when will you share your "1" T.O.E. formula? Looking forward to exchanging/sharing info w/ you. Be the One fun:) tori
Actually I have given the equation. It's "1?". It's not the equation that's difficult. It's explaining why this is the equation that's going to take some time. Aca cords are a construct within a certain perceptual context. If I see the universe as me and a bunch of others, then aca cords make a lot of sense. If I see the universe as me and Source, aca cords don't make that much sense. If I see the universe as only Source, aca cords are irrelevant. I'm not here to say what way of looking at the universe is best. I'm simply here to say that however we look at it, that's what we get. The beauty is we alone get to create our own reality, there is no right or wrong way of doing that. The fundamental thought I wish I could share with everyone is, if a certain construct works for you, great! However, it's not necessary that that construct work for anyone else. In other words, in creating our own reality, we do not need the consent/approval of others to validate that reality. Aca cords are a pretty widely accepted construct in certain circles, so they have more thought energy backing them up. Again though, it's completely up to the individual whether they exist within a given individual reality. Andrew p.s. I got this sentence from a website out there. "Between each of us & every person we interact with, there is an invisible cord in which the energy flows back & forth. In the Western Occult Tradition, it is referred to as 'The Silver Cord', and in the Huna tradition it is called 'The Aca Cord'." p.p.s. In my own reality I know that nothing can be taken from me. I also know that anything I give is returned unto me many times over. The only one that effects my Well-Being is me.
-you described it perfectly....thanks. I've heard of the concept, just never heard that particular term before. I've done a lot of reading on the idea that we create our own realities and thought power. I find it facinating. thanks! Heather
And what feels good for one, may feel bad for another, and vice versa.
I've sought validation for much of my life, and I realize now that it's not needed, or even wanted. I am that I am, and that's what I am. Each of us is the center of the universe, and we are writing the fundamental quantum rules of our own existence.
Let me give you a personal example. For many years, I've felt energy flow in my body. I've studied Tai Chi to help increase that flow. Before, I saw myself as a physical body generating a field. Therefore, in my reality, the better I treated my body (i.e. diet, exercise, sleep, etc) the better my flow was. After reading Ask and it is Given, seeing What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and fully realizing that I was creating my own reality, I decided to see myself as an energy being housed in a physical body. All it was, was a change in perception. Now, the flow I feel is magnitudes stronger, and my physical body is getting into better shape, with almost no work. Before I would watch my calories, try to eat “healthy” food. Now I eat what I desire, and appreciate every bite. I'm pure energy, food is just something I enjoy with my body.
I'm going to preface this with, “Everything I say is for entertainment purposes only!” I don't mind saying that, because, Life is supposed to be FUN! I will not be held accountable for your results however, since everything experienced comes down to the individual allowing.
Try my High Joy Content Diet, I'd Love to hear of any success stories. Just remember do what feels best to you, and let others do what feels best to them. We can have different realities and still appreciate one another for who we are.
-hello Andrew! Ok, have a couple of questions for ya...are ya ready for this? 1. The "diet" you created....well I would tend to think that it would be essential to one's well being to have a balance....not too much acid...and the more alkaline is a good thang...rust and rot from the inside out. fact. 1. NOW, you asked for an example of 2 things that are alike...I stated numbers and letters...yet, you did not comment on said statement. 1. I am a fairly intelligent gal thus I can wrap my brain around **most** concepts...so am curious to hear more about your "1" theory and how it IS the T.O.E. 1. I enjoy meditating...and find it easy despite my energetic disposition. Do you practice a particular method? 1. What do you do for fun? Do you have any hobbies? be the fun... Tori
-
0=2 yup that about sums it up for me. Great thing science.
-
So how do I lose 30 years of physical aging without losing 30 years of perspective. And while we're at it how do I make 30 years of bad mistakes that hurt other people disappear and dead people alive again?
-
Interesting posts :) There were varying replies to Andrews posts, none as thorough as lordraleigh or as cynically closed minded as Zanzibar, most equated his thoughts to reductionism.
My response was not cynically closed minded! The guy simply doesn't understand math, and I was pointing out his mistakes!
You can believe him if you want to, but don't pretend you aren't simply choosing what to believe arbitrarily with disregard to the facts!
-
I agree with zanz ... this is just getting stupid ... so far nothing has been proven other then the fact that somone here has an oppinion. How ever I am still wating to hear this thing about the number 1. Oh yes and about that two things are equal thing ... umm I beleive they explained that on What the Bleep do we know?. That lab thing they talked about ... you see two objects .. 1 in one glass and another in the other glass, but they are equal because they are really one object but you see two, or there really is two objects and there just linked too each other ... either way you see 2 and there equal ... so I think that works for me. Though I some how think im wrong.
-
I agree with zanz ... this is just getting stupid ... so far nothing has been proven other then the fact that somone here has an oppinion. How ever I am still wating to hear this thing about the number 1. Oh yes and about that two things are equal thing ... umm I beleive they explained that on What the Bleep do we know?. That lab thing they talked about ... you see two objects .. 1 in one glass and another in the other glass, but they are equal because they are really one object but you see two, or there really is two objects and there just linked too each other ... either way you see 2 and there equal ... so I think that works for me. Though I some how think im wrong.
I wasn't going to use the s word, but I agree. The foundation of his theory is factually inaccurate .
"What the heck do we know?" is a horrible movie filled with lies and pseudo science. But yes, it does touch on Einstein's "spooky science" theory.
-
I do believe you are missing the point, the math isnt the important thing here. I think the method is more important than the content, it is the proccess of analisys. To break away from conventional thinking and allow new non black and white, fact = fact mentality, discovering new possibilities.
Please tell me what 'lies' you are reffering to in "What the Bleep Do We Know", I would be happy to know.
Here is a little more of the discussion :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love your enthusiasm and challenging spirit.
1.The "diet" you created....well I would tend to think that it would be essential to one's well being to have a balance....not too much acid...and the more alkaline is a good thang...rust and rot from the inside out. Fact.
The trick to this diet is in realizing we each create our own realities. Abraham says, “That our natural state of being is a state of Well-Being.” Taking the limit of this statement, there is nothing outside of us that can remove us from this place. It's not what we eat or don't eat, it's how we feel about what we eat.
If we believe we need balance, then we do. The statement, “eat what you desire”, means just that. The body has a natural knowing of what it wants. The basis of quantum mechanics is “what we see is what we get.”
I Love spinach for example. Then one day someone tells me spinach is toxic. I'm still working to remove this unwanted program. Each person is unique. What's right for one may not be right for another. I believe that if each person truly listened to their own bodies they would eat what was appropriate for them. The trick to this diet is in following all the rules as a whole, not just one or two.
1.NOW, you asked for an example of 2 things that are alike...I stated numbers and letters...yet, you did not comment on said statement.
I mean two physical tangible objects, not concepts. I'm bouncing around the concept that math does not truly model nature. It's only an approximation.
1.I am a fairly intelligent gal thus I can wrap my brain around **most** concepts...so am curious to hear more about your "1" theory and how it IS the T.O.E.
I've been pondering how to explain the next segment of my proof of “1?”. I'll post it soon.
1.I enjoy meditating...and find it easy despite my energetic disposition. Do you practice a particular method?
I don't use any particular method. I sit or lay down. I prefer to lay down. I relax my entire body, relax/clear my mind, and breathe deeply. I focus on the feelings in my body, for me an energy flow.
1.What do you do for fun? Do you have any hobbies?
For fun, I post on PI. :-) I also do Tai Chi and Kung Fu. I like to sing. I really like to set an intention and then just go with the flow. Sometimes I end up in places I never would have dreamed, just by following those little inner tugs. I guess in a nut shell my biggest hobby is living. :-)
Andrew
Question;
Hiya Andrew! I am enjoying this thread. Ok, here we go, a tangible example: My hand and your hand...are alike and exact. OR are you going to throw at me the fact that the Golden ratio is an irrartional number therefore does NOT apply? And yes, I eagerly anticipate your next post:) Tori
Ah, they are similar, very similar, but they are not exactly the same. Different sizes, different ratios, different number of hairs, different number of lines, different in many ways. This is a good example because it shows how it's all in how you look at it. From one perspective they are the "same". From another, they are very different. You really cannot compare apples to apples, because no two apples are perfectly identical. Hehe, Andrew
Tori,
I want to thank you for giving me some inspiration. You've given me a good base to start explaining "?", what I call the "strange operator".
Operators in math or the action symbols like "+", "-", "*", etc. The strange operator is an operator that pulls the observers point of view into the equation.
So!
You would write the hand example as:
Tori's Hand = Andrew's Hand
I would write the hand example as:
Tori's Hand != Andrew's Hand ('!=' means 'not equal')
Using the strange operator, we could reduce this controdiction into:
Tori's Hand ? Andrew's Hand
The strange operator (?) becomes what you believe it to be. In other words, both of our equations are true, simultaneously, based upon our own individual interpretations of the reality of the situation. Our hand's are both equal and not equal at the same time.
Now, going a step further, since there is only one thing in existence, we can reduce the equation to:
1 ? 1
or:
1?
Because the one on either side of the question mark is the same 1. Thus, the equation becomes circular and reduces even further. It's hard to describe this aspect with words, so I need to make a visual, which I will do soon.
Andrew
Tori;
Andrew, I DO understand...I am diggin' the crazy hand jive...lol (there I go again with a song reference...occupational hazard). is this somewhat (loosely) based on a Lynn Grabhold theory? I no longer have the book to use as a reference so I can't back up my statement. The purpose for using the hands as an example is due to the fact that each individual has the same mathematical equation when measuring fingers, arm span, etc....and it is based on sacred geometry...the Golden Mean...or Golden ratio 1.618...so could the "strange operator" factor into that as well. I gues so, IF everything IS one..that would be the case as many ancients utilized this equation. I can't claim the following as my own from Drunvalo Melchizedek: The size of the Earth is in harmonics with ( in phi ratio to)the moon, and these ratios are found in the porportions of our human energy fields and even in the very Egg of Life itself. "Man is the measuring stick of the universe." If you were to draw a horizontal line thru the center of the Earth to it's circumference, then the lines from those 2 points up to the center of the moon, and from the center of the moon a line back down to the center of the Earth, these are the precise porportions of the Great Pyramids in Egypt! That angle is 51 minutes, 24 seconds, exactly the same as that of the Great Pyramid. Since the Earth, the Moon (and the entire solar system), the physical human body and the Egg of Life are all related geometrically and the Great Pyramid ties them all together; and since we have these three different consciousness levels that happen to have pyramids inside each one (I can share the math on that too)....the human energy field contains the size of the Earth we live on and the Moon that moves around her! If our bodies are the "measuring stick" for the universe, does it mean that we contain within us, somehow or somewhere, all sizes of all possible planets? Does it mean the sizes of all suns are located in us somewhere? So, that would loosely support your "1" theory to a certain extent. There is NO randomness, at all. Ok, your turn... Tori :)
-
I do believe you are missing the point, the math isnt the important thing here.
His entire theory is based on math... so how is the math not important?
Please tell me what 'lies' you are reffering to in "What the Bleep Do We Know", I would be happy to know.
They misrepresent quantum mechanics and they edit interviews to make it seem like people are saying things they didn't mean to say.
Andrew, I DO understand...I am diggin' the crazy hand jive...lol (there I go again with a song reference...occupational hazard). is this somewhat (loosely) based on a Lynn Grabhold theory? I no longer have the book to use as a reference so I can't back up my statement. The purpose for using the hands as an example is due to the fact that each individual has the same mathematical equation when measuring fingers, arm span, etc....and it is based on sacred geometry...the Golden Mean...or Golden ratio 1.618...so could the "strange operator" factor into that as well. I gues so, IF everything IS one..that would be the case as many ancients utilized this equation. I can't claim the following as my own from Drunvalo Melchizedek: The size of the Earth is in harmonics with ( in phi ratio to)the moon, and these ratios are found in the porportions of our human energy fields and even in the very Egg of Life itself. "Man is the measuring stick of the universe." If you were to draw a horizontal line thru the center of the Earth to it's circumference, then the lines from those 2 points up to the center of the moon, and from the center of the moon a line back down to the center of the Earth, these are the precise porportions of the Great Pyramids in Egypt! That angle is 51 minutes, 24 seconds, exactly the same as that of the Great Pyramid. Since the Earth, the Moon (and the entire solar system), the physical human body and the Egg of Life are all related geometrically and the Great Pyramid ties them all together; and since we have these three different consciousness levels that happen to have pyramids inside each one (I can share the math on that too)....the human energy field contains the size of the Earth we live on and the Moon that moves around her! If our bodies are the "measuring stick" for the universe, does it mean that we contain within us, somehow or somewhere, all sizes of all possible planets? Does it mean the sizes of all suns are located in us somewhere? So, that would loosely support your "1" theory to a certain extent. There is NO randomness, at all.
This is metaphysical BS filled with assumption and pseudoscience. It's a bunch of nonsense and I could pick it apart to show how silly it is, but I don't feel like wasting my time. For now, all I'll say is that humans built the pyramids and our solar system is more or less randomly put together so any patterns that arise which are not the result of magnetism and gravity are merely the result of coincidence in the most secular sense.
-
Umm infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity) is not a number in the ordinary sense. Infinity+1 is a meaningless concept. I'm not saying I agree with what is being put forward, just that the rebuttal is lame. Now if I can hear how to turn back time or to hit the cosmic "undo" I might give this some credence as far as I was able to put it into practice. I know a few dead people who didn't deserve what they got and who I would welcome back.
-
Umm infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity) is not a number in the ordinary sense. Infinity+1 is a meaningless concept. I'm not saying I agree with what is being put forward, just that the rebuttal is lame. Now if I can hear how to turn back time or to hit the cosmic "undo" I might give this some credence as far as I was able to put it into practice. I know a few dead people who didn't deserve what they got and who I would welcome back.
More or less. "Infinity + 1" isn't meaningless, but it isn't a real number. It's a process with no value except in a relativistic sense.
What rebuttal are you calling lame?
-
Yes, yes, Tori, Everything you are talking about are manifestations of an organized, connected, unified universe. I want to take the discussion to a deeper level. You and I might see these connections within the universe around us, and someone else might not see them. When you and I look around the universe and see connectedness, we start to experience that connectedness more and more. The universe brings us more experiences that validate what we "know" to be true about the universe, that all things are One. There are people that see the universe as a big random blob of chaos, and that's ok. When they look around, they see the byproducts of fundamental deterministic laws of the universe, that just happened to produce life as we know it. There have been cultures that see the universe as a creation of some magical being, that controls and manipulates all things, whom must be served or worshipped in some way. Ultimately, there is no better or worse way to look at things. We both see connectedness, but that doesn't mean we see things the best way. We simply see what we see, and then experience what we see. Those other view points experience what they see. We could all discuss forever what the universe Is, and we would find that we could never agree upon everything. We all tend to search for the objective reality that Is, and then want everyone to agree upon what that Is. The core of quantum mechanics is knowing that there may or may not be objective reality, and that we can only be know the universe subjectively. Let me give you a concrete example. I can choose to believe that my body is a collection of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, etc. Once I choose to believe that, that’s the assumption my reality will build itself upon. Or I can choose to believe that my body is a project of light emanating from my inner being. Once I choose to believe that, that’s the assumpion that my reality will build itself upon. Neither way is better or worse than the other. It’s all just a game. It just a matter of what serves me best. Now I don’t expect people to just throw out everything they believe about the universe. I merely want to express that it’s an option, and at core most of it is, just belief (assumptions). Andrew
Tori;
Oh my Andrew... Hmm-mm-mm...(rubbing my chin in contemplation)...SO...the deeper level is which, what, whom? For the "1" vibe to click, and for it to be effective...does it begin with the individual or group self? When you believe you are intelligent, you act intelligently. When you believe you are loving, you act lovingly and attract love. When you believe you are limitless, you act limitlessly and attract success. Why not accept the truth--that you were born to be happy, to succeed and to live life abundantly? By putting your attention on the most positive manifestation of your being, you create love, joy and peace in your life. It's your life---live it! Damn straight! Tori:)
:-) Tori, Hehe, It definitely begins and ends with the individual. That's exactly it. We should each live our lives, and let everyone else live theirs. We can each stand firm in the knowing that no matter how we "see" things, the universe will be that for us. We can also stand firm in knowing that no one has to agree with us. The equation "1?" states that the universe can be this, than, and the other, simultaneously, even if this, that, and the other are contradictory. One person's universal "laws" can be another person's universal "tendencies". Andrew
Andrew, Are you talking Multiple dimensions? And how do we help raise the world vibrations? Tori
I'm talking about the most fundamental principle in all the universe, beyond everything we think we know. The more we have this discussion the more I see that this is the mathematical equation for the Law of Attraction. You could consider the universe to have infinite dimensions. The only dimension that really matters to me though is the dimension that is me. The physical universe I live in, may or may not be the same physical universe you live in, even though ultimately we exist within the same universe. Although the word "we" becomes a little murky when you boil everything down to the One thing that is Source. In other words, I as an individual do not have to adopt the physical "laws" as defined by scientists as to how the universe works. Taking that even a step further, I can align with a physics that better suites my desired joy. The greatest thing about all of this is that no two people have to have the same physics. The universe is big enough, adaptable enough, and stretchable enough that it can deliver the individual physical results we desire. The point of this entire thread is to give each of us back the truly abundant freedom of creation that each and everyone of us Is. We are not limited in anyway by anything at anytime. There are no physical "laws", only perceived tendencies. Let me give you an example. When I lived in Arizona, I had a friend that was Navajo. I got to stay on the Navajo reservation with her parents several times. Her parents lived in a little one room building out in the middle of nowhere. The Navajo have many ceremonies for many things, and have a very different knowing about how the universe works than the average American. All I can really say is that on the Navajo reservation magic works. They have a cultural, historical belief system that creates this collective reality. Bring a scientist into this arena and they’ll see no magic, because magic cannot exist within the scientists mind. The Navajo and the scientists could argue forever on “How the Universe Works”, and never agree. They could each have deep personal experiences backing up their individual realities. My point is that both realities are simultaneously true at the same time. Magic exists and does not exist at the same time. Science exists and does not exist at the same time. The universe will operate in the model set down by the individual. The universe can even operate in different models at the same time that appear to conflict with each other. All That Is is as simple or complex as we choose to make it. See the individual power in that? Andrew
I want to thank you as well for pushing the limits with me. I truly appreciate your perspective and support. It's tough for me to discuss any particular model of the universe, as I see all of them as true and valid.
What I want more than anything is for each of us to see that our unique perspective on things is as equally important to the universe as anyone elses perspective. For example, I Love science. I think sciece is a great way to look at things. Science has done wonders for the modern world. As a freedom seeking being though, I refuse to be limited by science, or any universal model for that matter.
1 - All things are one thing.
? - What we perceive that one thing to be, is how it is.
Andrew
-
The core of quantum mechanics is knowing that there may or may not be objective reality, and that we can only be know the universe subjectively.
False. This is one of the many lies made by the movie "What the heck do we know?".
The core principle of quantum mechanics, if anything, is the uncertainty principle that says that particles have a duel nature as both particle and "probability wave". This stuff about choosing your own reality based on what you decide to be real has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
LARAGORN, you're still ignoring my explanation of how the foundation of his theory is bullcrap. He's abusing bad math to prove something which simply isn't true.
-
My friend Zanzi, I didnt avoid anything
I do believe you are missing the point, the math isnt the important thing here. I think the method is more important than the content, it is the proccess of analisys. To break away from conventional thinking and allow new non black and white, fact = fact mentality, discovering new possibilities.
If you dont get it, well, I'm sory. How is he using bad math? Simply because you dont agree with his theory, dose not make it wrong. I cant make it any clearer then Andrew has, and some people will never get it, and thats ok.
The point of this entire thread is to give each of us back the truly abundant freedom of creation that each and everyone of us Is. We are not limited in anyway by anything at anytime. There are no physical "laws", only perceived tendencies. ...
...The greatest thing about all of this is that no two people have to have the same physics. The universe is big enough, adaptable enough, and stretchable enough that it can deliver the individual physical results we desire. ...
...My point is that both realities are simultaneously true at the same time.
Andrew
-
If you dont get it, well, I'm sory. How is he using bad math? Simply because you dont agree with his theory, dose not make it wrong. I cant make it any clearer then Andrew has, and some people will never get it, and thats ok.
His entire theory is based on a mathematically proof showing that 1=0. However his math is just plain wrong. It's bad math. I explained how it was bad math in my original post - I guess you didn't take the time to read that post before dismissing it.
There are different rates and sizes of infinity. Infinity is one less than infinity plus one. Infinity is half the size of infinity times two. This is because infinity is a process, not a value. He simply doesn't understand math as well as he thinks he does and he's exploiting the ignorance of his audience. His proof is bunk.
This means that his "theory" is nothing but quasi-religious metaphysical assumptions lacking proof. Now, quasi-religious metaphysical assumptions lacking proof can be interesting and pleasant, but that doesn't mean we should believe them.
-
With all due respect Zanzi, you are posting insanly, Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (this definition has been atributed to many others aswell).
I get your point, I understand your logic, I dont agree with you. Very simple.
This thread is not for you Zanzi, you have everything figured out and you are happy that way. Not everyone else thinks that way, (thankfully) some people like to exersise their brain by trying to imagine new possibilities. You are not one of these people, so stop wasting your time here, there are many other threads that are just waiting for an argument, this one is not. ;)
-
With all due respect Zanzi, you are posting insanly, Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (this definition has been atributed to many others aswell).
I get your point, I understand your logic, I dont agree with you. Very simple.
This thread is not for you Zanzi, you have everything figured out and you are happy that way. Not everyone else thinks that way, (thankfully) some people like to exersise their brain by trying to imagine new possibilities. You are not one of these people, so stop wasting your time here, there are many other threads that are just waiting for an argument, this one is not. ;)
Do you realize how much of a fool you look like right now?
-
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i10/LARAGORN/smileys/rofl.gif) Concidering you think 98% of the people on this forum are fools, I am in good company (http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i10/LARAGORN/smileys/rofl.gif)
-
Concidering you think 98% of the people on this forum are fools, I am in good company.
Your behaviour is so irrational that I'm finding it hard to figure out what an appropriate response would be. You're saying that you want to ignore me because I disagree with you, and you're saying that you're willing to believe something that has no evidence in support of it. And you don't see a problem with any of this. Do you really think it's a good idea to believe any idea you think is interesting or that sounds nice, even if it's unfounded or based on bad evidence? That's how you get a country stuck in Iraq.
And despite all this, you dare to accuse me of insanity? ::)
-
Im beginning to understand why you stayed out of the Psionics thread Zanzibar :P
Do you really think it's a good idea to believe any idea you think is interesting or that sounds nice, even if it's unfounded or based on bad evidence?
Unfortunatly an awful lot of people do seem to think like this.
-
Isn't that the basis for religion?
-
Just to refresh the thinking peoples minds..
I do believe you are missing the point, the math isnt the important thing here. I think the method is more important than the content, it is the proccess of analisys. To break away from conventional thinking and allow new non black and white, fact = fact mentality, discovering new possibilities.
Nowhere in this thread am I asking people to believe anything, I am asking people to THINK outside the box (I hate using old sayings :D )
Nothing more, nothing less, just possibilities.
-
Isn't that the basis for religion?
I believe it is, yes.
Nowhere in this thread am I asking people to believe anything, I am asking people to THINK outside the box (I hate using old sayings :D )
Nothing more, nothing less, just possibilities.
You are asking people to disregard what they actually do believe, to think in the way you want them to? You will never get the replies your looking for because we are our thoughts and beliefs and you are not likely to change what we are with a thread on these forums.
-
Wow, guys, stop killing the thread.
Laragorn is just posting an interesting discussion from another forums, nothing wrong with that. Disagree if you want, Zanzi, I'm with you there. But, just leave the thread alone for now, maybe Andrew will clear up his mistakes later.
-
Wow, guys, stop killing the thread.
Laragorn is just posting an interesting discussion from another forums, nothing wrong with that. Disagree if you want, Zanzi, I'm with you there. But, just leave the thread alone for now, maybe Andrew will clear up his mistakes later.
Given Laragorn's response on this forum, I don't think Andrew will ever find out about his "mistakes".
-
Andrew, SO, HERE’S THIS GUY JOHN BELL . . . a physicist in Switzerland, and he’s saying that reality is nonlocal . . . he’s saying that one event can affect the other, even before the first event decides to happen! ONCE YOU HAVE faster than light effects happening, not only is this sort of thing possible, it has to happen! Once you exceed the speed of light, you’re going to have events in the future affecting things in the past! Physics guarantees that! That was MY "Ah ha!" moment of the day:) Your thoughts? Tori
Yes! So! If events in the future are causing results in the past, then it is impossible to predict cause and effect, and thus impossible to know exactly how everything in the universe works. Because we don't always know the cause before the effect is felt. Nor can we know all the causes before the effects are felt. Therefore! The universe does not behave like a deterministic machine within the perspective of time. Miracles, coincidences, magic, are all possible and beyond explanation, since the causes could be happening in the future. We could never control all the causes, and thus control the results. All we can do is Ask and Allow. I Love your curiosity and openness to many different sources of information, Andrew p.s. This is how in our moment of asking the universe can seemingly cause past events to have coincided to bring us that exact thing in the very moment of our asking, and sometimes even before. Andrew
The uncertainty priciple? This is not a world reducible to neat equations and pat answers, but an infinitely complex series of interdependencies, where the tiniest change in a remote place can have systemwide repercussions. I think I am a wave mechanic:) Tori
Life has kept me busy enjoying an abundant stream of manifestation, and I felt I needed to take some time and at least post the math proof to the 1? equation.
E = infinity
1/E = 0 (Any finite number divided by infinity equals zero.)
1 = 1
E/E = E/E (Anything over itself equals one.)
E/E = E/E + 0
E/E = E/E + 1/E (Remember: 1/E = 0.)
E/E = (E + 1)/E
E = E + 1 (Removed common denominator.)
E - E = 1
0 = 1 (Apparent contradiction.)
Now hard core math people would argue that this argument is invalid because it leads to contradiction. In math contradictions are not allowed. What's very interesting here is that E = E + 1 is valid. It was introduced to me in a college math course. If you add one teensy tiny something to infinity it doesn't change the infinity, because the infinity is so much bigger than that little 1.
Since math dudes won't allow contradiction, they say you can't subtract an infinity from an infinity (E - E). They'll argue that step is invalid. I say it is valid. It can be done. The reason they won't allow it is that it appears to break math, and that just can't be, can it?
I've pondered this paradoxical situation for many many years, and it finally came down to the only variable left. The observer. It's all in how you look at the equation. The trouble with (E - E) is that it can yield any result you choose. It can be 1, 0, -1, or any other number. So, mathematicians say it's an invalid operation because the results are unknown. What's really going on here is that math is telling us that we can't know everything through math. Some answers, nay an infinite number of answers, are not mechanical in nature. "Don't mind that man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Oz", they shout.
So for a long while E = E + 1 kept me busy. Until I was able to reduce the equation into 1?. There an extra mental twist to get there, and I'm going to save that as I need a good visual to explain it. For now, enjoy.
Andrew
Hi Andrew. Well, you've done a good proof, however I don't think it proves what you think it proves :-) What that proves to me is that infinity is not a number. You have made use of the technique known as reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum You started off by assuming infinity is a number and by manipulating it algebraically you reached a contradictory conclusion. Since the algebra is correct, it must be the original assumption that is faulty, proving infinity is not a number. Infinity in maths (I say 'maths' :-) is a shorthand. So it can't be used with mathematical operators. Correctly one would say : 1/0 -> E (infinity) which is read as 'one divided by zero tends to infinity'. The division operator 'blows up' when zero is input as the second argument. Zero is not a suitable input as a divisor, in the same way hardened steel ball bearings are not a suitable input for a food processor :-) Namaste, Greg
There are plenty of proofs around using infinity. There's a whole branch of math built around it. The fundamental "problem" with math is that anything that leads to contradiction is discarded as 'false', because mathematicians have assumed contradictions cannot exist at the same time. Math also has the built in assumption of 'equality'. There is no proof for equality. Again, it's an assumption. So no matter what the above proof proves to any given person, it all comes down to belief, which is just free will choice. Thus restating once again that everything, and I mean, everything is our own creation.
I personally choose not to be limited by math, and thus not by science. I live in an infinite (not a number, unpredictable, ever expanding, big party) universe.
According to your definition all of math must be reductio ad absurdum, since the original assumption of equality is false. There are no two things in the Universe that can be shown to be exactly equal. None. Math is a theory not a reality, unless assumed to be true, and then it is a reality for those that believe it. Andrew
Andrew, thank you so much for this fascinating discussion, I have read the entire thread with great interest. Your thoughts and ideas are intriguing, and you get me thinking along new lines. I really appreciate your unique perspective!
There are some areas where I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you (i.e. LOA is "the only law in the universe," and mathematics "should be banned"); but I am definitely on your wavelength when it comes to the relative/subjective nature of reality (i.e. each of us creates our own universe, and whatever we believe is what becomes real), which is a major theme of my life lately.
I am currently in the process of expanding my concept of reality, pushing back the boundaries, stripping away illusions, and removing limitations every day. I am grateful for your posts, Andrew, because they convey a sense of confidence borne of successful practice--and that confidence bolsters me on my own journey. It's like you are blazing a trail, and I am gratefully following in your wake, learning from what you are saying and doing.
Thank you, and please continue sharing your successful practice of the LOA. Meanwhile I will read more of your posts, continue learning from you, and (if you don't mind) ply you with questions. :) Jason
-
Since math dudes won't allow contradiction, they say you can't subtract an infinity from an infinity (E - E). They'll argue that step is invalid. I say it is valid. It can be done. The reason they won't allow it is that it appears to break math, and that just can't be, can it?
I say that 5+12=43, IMO that is a valid statement. I am of course wrong. Just trying to make the point that you cant decide when something is and isnt a valid arguement in mathematics. If it isnt, it just isnt.
-
Andrew, SO, HERE’S THIS GUY JOHN BELL . . . a physicist in Switzerland, and he’s saying that reality is nonlocal . . . he’s saying that one event can affect the other, even before the first event decides to happen!
That's a relatively well known product of quantum theory, though not everyone agrees on it.
ONCE YOU HAVE faster than light effects happening, not only is this sort of thing possible, it has to happen!
What sort of thing? What are you talking about?
Once you exceed the speed of light, you’re going to have events in the future affecting things in the past! Physics guarantees that! That was MY "Ah ha!" moment of the day:) Your thoughts? Tori
I don't see how this is related to the discussion at hand.
Yes! So! If events in the future are causing results in the past, then it is impossible to predict cause and effect, and thus impossible to know exactly how everything in the universe works.
*yawn* Wrong. Physical laws can be a constant despite physical events not being constant.
Because we don't always know the cause before the effect is felt.
We're talking about quantum events. It's a scale so small that the human mind cannot comprehend it.
Nor can we know all the causes before the effects are felt. Therefore! The universe does not behave like a deterministic machine within the perspective of time.
Uh, no.
Miracles, coincidences, magic, are all possible and beyond explanation, since the causes could be happening in the future.
Uh, no.
We could never control all the causes, and thus control the results. All we can do is Ask and Allow.
You do realize we're talking about quantum events, right?
1 = 1
E/E = E/E (Anything over itself equals one.)
E/E = E/E + 0
E/E = E/E + 1/E (Remember: 1/E = 0.)
E/E = (E + 1)/E
E = E + 1 (Removed common denominator.)
E - E = 1
0 = 1 (Apparent contradiction.)
You are not allowed to divide by zero like that. :|
Now hard core math people would argue that this argument is invalid because it leads to contradiction.
It's invalid because it uses invalid processes. It's not good algebra. It's akin to factoring out 0/0.
In math contradictions are not allowed. What's very interesting here is that E = E + 1 is valid. It was introduced to me in a college math course.
The prof who teaches that needs to be fired for not understanding math. :|
-
E/E = E/E + 1/E (Remember: 1/E = 0.)
E/E = (E + 1)/E
E = E + 1 (Removed common denominator.)
This part doesn't make sense.
Why? This:
E/E = E/E + 1/E (Remember: 1/E = 0.)
You can't say that 1/E=0 The number would be infinitely small, but not 0. In fact, the number doesn't exist, just as infinity itself isn't a real number :)
And as all you guys like quote fights so much:
Infinity a Concept, Not a Number
Date: 03/16/2003 at 01:08:54
From: Kaiser
Subject: 1/infinity
Hi everybody!
1/infinity = 0
In words, if 1 chocolate bar is divided among an infinite number of
people, no one gets anything! Where did the chocolate bar go?
Doesn't it imply that 1/infinity = infinitesimally small?
Date: 03/16/2003 at 02:06:09
From: Doctor Wallace
Subject: Re: 1/infinity
Hello Kaiser,
I think you have the basic idea down, but you may have also fallen
prey to a common misconception that I'd like to clear up.
Where did you get the idea that 1/infinity = 0?
The very sentence "1/infinity = 0" has no meaning. Why? Because
"infinity" is a concept, NOT a number. It is a concept that means
"limitlessness." As such, it cannot be used with any mathematical
operators. The symbols of +, -, x, and / are arithmetic operators, and
we can only use them for numbers.
To write 1/infinity and mean "1 divided by infinity" doesn't make any
sense. 1 cannot be divided by a concept. It can only be divided by
a number. Similarly, "infinity + 1" or "2 times infinity" are also
meaningless.
As another example, what does this mean: "1 / justice = 5"?
That's right! It is as meaningless as "1 / infinity = 0" because
justice is a concept, not a number.
In math, when you hear people say things like "1 over infinity is
zero" what they are usually referring to is something called a limit.
They are just using a kind of shorthand, however. They do NOT mean
that 1 can actually be divided by infinity. Instead, they mean that,
if you divide 1 by successively higher numbers, the result becomes
closer and closer to 0. If I divide 1 by a very large number, like a
billion, then I get one-billionth, which is a VERY small number, but
it isn't 0. Since there is no largest number, I can always divide 1 by
a bigger number. But that will just produce an even smaller number,
right? It will NEVER produce 0, no matter how high I go. But since the
answer to the division is getting closer to and closer to 0, we say
that "the limit of the expression is zero." But we have still not
divided anything by infinity, since that isn't a number.
To go back to your chocolate bar, what if you divide it among every
person living on earth? Each person would get roughly 1 six-billionth
of a chocolate bar. That's a very, very small amount, and you'd
probably need a microscope to see your piece, but it wouldn't be zero,
right? Ah, but you asked about dividing it up amongst an infinite
number of people. Well, we can't. Why? Because infinity isn't a
number, so you can't show me an infinite number of people. If you try
to, I will just add one more person, and then we'd realize that the
number you thought was "infinity" actually wasn't.
So, to finish up, you are perfectly correct in saying that "1/infinity
= infinitesimally small." But only if you realize that you REALLY mean
"1 divided by a REALLY big number is a REALLY small number."
Thanks for writing to Dr. Math. Don't hesitate to write again if you
need further help with this or another question.
By the way, reverse maths!
1/5=0.2
So 0.2x5=1!
in the same way:
1/E=0 (wrong, but example)
0xE=1??
wrong!
0xanything=0
:)
-
OMG ThomPhoenix, this thread isn't for people like you! And the math doesn't matter! omg omg!
-
Thread warning for the people who know what posts have been deleted. Chill out, and refresh your memory of some forum rules.
-
I read through as much of this as I could but goodness, at 1 am its a bit much. I confess I skipped a few of the later long long long quote portions. The thread is interesting as a discussion, but it got hijacked because it started being about who was right and who was wrong. Reviewing most of that I do agree with Zanzibar that the math is bad, at least in the sense that we utilize math currently. The persons point seemed to be though that math wasn't really anything other than an arbitrary means of describing a system anyways so using math to prove his point seems a bit moot to me. Math is a concept that is used to describe our universe sure, but while we could have come up with a different mathematic system to describe everything but the only real difference would be that it differed physically and mentally - the underlying concepts would still be the same.
Later he spontaneously delves into a simplistic analysis and description of causality, noting some of the unique properties of quantum mechanics. The problem is that causality as we know it is linear, its simply that thats not true at the subatomic level which is what quantum mechanics describes. I can't apply quantum mechanics to describe a ball flying through the air, but I can use it to describe how gluons bind quarks together, or how atomic forces works. Its at that level that causality doesn't necessarily follow a cause then effect relationship, but that doesn't matter much on the macro scale which our bodies exist at and our conscious is confined to (well, as far as we know :D ).
The thing is that thanks to the total uniqueness of everyone, no one will ever see the same problem in the same way. Our observations are subject to a parallax of our own biases, experiences, knowledge, and intuition, and no one carries the same combination of these. Where am I going with this? I'd nearly forgotten myself! I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you delve into conceptual ideas and ideology trying to prove something right, like Laragorn is doing is basically pointless and a waste of time. The idea is interesting to ponder, to talk about, but just because a flaw in it is pointed out doesn't mean you have to defend it so harshly. Instead, try to take the criticisms and review them as objectively as you can without getting defensive, and try to reevaluate what you know and think based on your new slightly changed perspective. A person who never has a change of opinion is useless as an intellectual and worthless to have any sort of discussion with. The trick is to keep an open mind even when you feel you are being attacked and search for the bits that are still worthwhile.
-
One thing I'd like to note is that quantum mechanics is what we have learned about the smallest things we have been able to discover. That does not mean we have found the basis of all matter and that quanta are the be all and end all. I suspect that scientists will eventually find some way to subdivide quarks and stranges and muons and whatever. I do not believe the number 1 really exists because everything is made up of bits of something else. Just as you cannot pin down the infinite you cannot mark the infinitesimal. How many 3's are there after the decimal point when you divide 1 by three? What is the last digit of pi? Does Quantum Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chaos) have macroscopic effects? how do we tell?
Bah. I'll stick with Popeye: I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam.
I do not actually like yams all that much though.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you delve into conceptual ideas and ideology trying to prove something right, like Laragorn is doing is basically pointless and a waste of time.
Said differently: Using reason to disprove irrational ideas is often fruitless since subscribers believe what they want to believe despite proof that they're wrong or lack of proof that they're right.
The idea is interesting to ponder, to talk about, but just because a flaw in it is pointed out doesn't mean you have to defend it so harshly. Instead, try to take the criticisms and review them as objectively as you can without getting defensive, and try to reevaluate what you know and think based on your new slightly changed perspective. A person who never has a change of opinion is useless as an intellectual and worthless to have any sort of discussion with. The trick is to keep an open mind even when you feel you are being attacked and search for the bits that are still worthwhile.
We're talking about people who believe things based on whims and who care not for reason or science unless it's for achieving a superficial appearance of being scientific. Believing to be true whatever you think sounds nice is not intellectualism.
There is nothing beautiful or elegant about this theory of "Andrew". It's based on bad math and it's poorly explained. What is "oneness"? He doesn't say. He just keeps saying it over and over again as if it's inherently meaningful.
If you want to understand "oneness" in a way that is both elegant and beautiful, look into Hindu and Budhist traditions. But this Andrew guy is just some jerk on the internet who thinks he's being clever with math.
-
Said differently: Using reason to disprove irrational ideas is often fruitless since subscribers believe what they want to believe despite proof that they're wrong or lack of proof that they're right.
:D Well...essentially, but I was trying to keep it less inflammatory, but as the night wears on and I get more and more tired I lose a little bit of tact. Proof is a hard thing to always come by though. Opinions are really just belief with a bit more evidence, but where that evidence comes from is almost never 100% fact. For example, I happen to believe that the United States has a military presence in the Middle East. In fact I'm certain of it. How do I know? I've never been to the Middle East, I have no first hand knowledge myself, I haven't seen it with my own eyes, so therefore I have no direct proof. Instead I am forced to rely on relayed information from the media and other outlets of information, and anything I hear is bound to be skewed by the way the information is relayed, who choose to relay it, the biases of everyone along the chain, etc... its like a big game of telephone (that game where you sit in a circle and say something in someones ear and they say it to the next person and by the time it gets back full circle to the person who said it the statement has been totally changed). In the end I have to rely on common sense, logic, a bit of intuition, and a willingness to do a little research myself to cut to more primary sources. So in that case I do believe what I believe despite true proof that I'm right. The problem is that that can be applied to most things.
There is nothing beautiful or elegant about this theory of "Andrew". It's based on bad math and it's poorly explained. What is "oneness"? He doesn't say. He just keeps saying it over and over again as if it's inherently meaningful.
Well the math is definitely suspect not just as math but as a whole concept because of the way he is trying to explain it. Perhaps he simply lacks the ability to adequately describe what he is thinking and is using math to try to get his point across, without the focus on it being exactly correct good math, but instead as a tool for illustration. Probably not but I don't know him - I usually give people the benefit of the doubt.
If you want to understand "oneness" in a way that is both elegant and beautiful, look into Hindu and Budhist traditions. But this Andrew guy is just some jerk on the internet who thinks he's being clever with math.
I wouldn't say he is a jerk, I'd just say that as sources of information go he might not be the most credible. I don't know him to know if he is a jerk or not :)
-
By "jerk" I didn't mean he was a bad guy. I only meant it to imply that he's a "layman" and a "self decieving con artist".
-
Mathematics is a fair seeming lie that we have told ourselves ever since it was invented because in a lot of cases it can approximate the truth. This has been shown particularly in the computer world, an example being the impossibility (with current knowledge) of generating a truly random number. I would go so far as saying that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is as much a failure of the mathematical model as anything else, of course it is unlikely a person who makes their living from science would agree.
Still you cannot replace something that works for the most part until you find something better so I'm not suggesting we discard science and math, just that we remain aware that they have their limitations.
-
Mathematics is a fair seeming lie that we have told ourselves ever since it was invented because in a lot of cases it can approximate the truth. This has been shown particularly in the computer world, an example being the impossibility (with current knowledge) of generating a truly random number. I would go so far as saying that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is as much a failure of the mathematical model as anything else, of course it is unlikely a person who makes their living from science would agree.
Still you cannot replace something that works for the most part until you find something better so I'm not suggesting we discard science and math, just that we remain aware that they have their limitations.
I don't see how the uncertainty principle shows any failure of the mathematical model. Mathematics is based on a set of axioms and logical processes. The uncertainty principle is a mathematical description of a physical law. The two go hand in hand if anything; Heisenberg's theory is a testament to the success of mathematics.
-
If you say so it must be true. Do you think there is a number system where pi and e have a finite number of digits? It doesn't have to be the same system. I suppose if you have a system where pi or e == 1 then they would but who know what the other one would be like in such a system.
Why are so many of the physical constants irrational numbers anyway, do we live in an irrational universe or is it just our number system is crap?
-
If you say so it must be true. Do you think there is a number system where pi and e have a finite number of digits? It doesn't have to be the same system. I suppose if you have a system where pi or e == 1 then they would but who know what the other one would be like in such a system.
Why are so many of the physical constants irrational numbers anyway, do we live in an irrational universe or is it just our number system is crap?
Just use base pi instead of base ten and you're set.
-
There aren't scientifical "FACTS", as if a theory claims to be unquestionable it isn't a scientifical theory, but a dogma, there are scientifical laws that are analyzed, tested and challenged and that will change according to new discoveries as human science progress.
But there are many dogmas disguised as scientific theories, and scientific theories that are sadly treated as dogmas and unquestionable truths. "Scientific Method" is usually one of these scientifc theories that many treat as dogams, as even the scientific method should be changed in the case new discoveries are made that turn the laws of it obsolete.
My main grudge is with a thing called Occam's razor in such matters, on its part that claims as a "FACT" that in two theories that are equally proven, the simplest one is closer to reality or is the best one.
It is simply a pragmatic approach on science, and the arguments used to defend it "It is more likely to find a shoe in a shoebox than a bomb" can be easily classified as a redcutio ad absurdum or as another logic fallacy.
For example: If it was used before the knowledge of biology existed to support the theory of evolution, the creationism would be more "truthful" as it is a simpler theory(God made Universe, man, etc, and that is it) than Evolutionism(Several biological processes, genetic mutations and the adaptation of species leaded to the development of more and more advanced life forms and it continues even now).
KISS principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) isn't the pinnacle of the development of human science. And Occam's Razor is related to such pragmatic principle. The easier and simpler path isn't always the best one.
-
There aren't scientifical "FACTS", as if a theory claims to be unquestionable it isn't a scientifical theory, but a dogma, there are scientifical laws that are analyzed and challenged and that will change according to new discoveries as human science progress.
But there are many dogmas disguised as scientific theories, and scientific theories that are sadly treated as dogmas and unquestionable truths.
And that's relevant to this discussion.... how? ??? Be specific and maybe your post will make sense to people other than yourself.
-
The point of this entire thread is to give each of us back the truly abundant freedom of creation that each and everyone of us Is. We are not limited in anyway by anything at anytime. There are no physical "laws", only perceived tendencies. ...
...The greatest thing about all of this is that no two people have to have the same physics. The universe is big enough, adaptable enough, and stretchable enough that it can deliver the individual physical results we desire. ...
...My point is that both realities are simultaneously true at the same time.
Andrew
To the hard core math dudes trying to figure out Andrew’s theory;
I will not try to justify or defend this theory as it is not my own.
Is it right or wrong? I don’t really care, math has never held anything like a long term interest for me. For all I care Andrew could have explained his theory using only a sun dial and an abacus.
To those who falsely claim that I am trying to force people to believe this, I will once again repeat myself; I am not asking anyone to believe anything, using an Ad-hominem mentality is not going to change that.
@lordraleigh; that is exactly what this thread is about.
Why are so many of the physical constants irrational numbers anyway, do we live in an irrational universe or is it just our number system is crap?
Good question, makes you think doesn’t it?
The thing is that thanks to the total uniqueness of everyone, no one will ever see the same problem in the same way. Our observations are subject to a parallax of our own biases, experiences, knowledge, and intuition, and no one carries the same combination of these.
I couldn’t agree more.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you delve into conceptual ideas and ideology trying to prove something right, like Laragorn is doing is basically pointless and a waste of time. The idea is interesting to ponder, to talk about, but just because a flaw in it is pointed out doesn't mean you have to defend it so harshly. ..
I am sorry but, I in no way tried to prove anything as right, I simply posted someone else’s ideas. It would be a very difficult task trying to prove anything in the material I have shared.
I was not defending the idea, I was lured into a childish mud sling. Simply because the main point of the thread was misunderstood and even after clarification, the main point was ignored. In hindsight, I should have opened another thread on ‘math and bad math’ to allow people to discuss the errors and ideas behind the actual equations Andrew used.
I have forwarded the main concerns of the equation to Andrew but have yet to hear back from him. I will post any reply I get.
-
We aren't trying to figure out his theory.
We understand this theory fully.
We are simply trying to show you that his evidence is bunk.
Are you saying that you'll believe something like this without evidence that it's true?
-
We aren't trying to figure out his theory.
I can be included in this
We understand this theory fully.
We are simply trying to show you that his evidence is bunk.
but not these, is that the royal "we"?
Are you saying that you'll believe something like this without evidence that it's true?
He has answered this at least three times why do you keep repeating it?
-
I don't see where he's answered it.
You made a post about infinity which showed Andrew's math to be bad. ;)
-
I can honestly say I didnt understand his theory. Frankly I gave up reading after a few sentences. I have better things to do than read junk, like writing junk :)
-
E = E + 1 (Invalid argument, a letter can't calculated with a number except if the number is converted into a string and even this way it will be wrong)... as
"E" - "E" != 1 and therefore "E" != "E" + 1
If we remove "E" from the string "E" we will get
"E" - "E" = ""
Thus
"" = 1
Which in turn will result in:
"" = 1 = FALSE
as FALSE may be represented by "1" in some configuration codes instead of "0":
FALSE = 1
Therefore here is the final result of this equation, proving that it makes some sense in an interdisciplinary way by mixing boolean with math:
"E" = "E" + 1 = FALSE = 1 ???
Now this last equation shows the validity of the claim in a logic apparatus as a formulae to create a "FALSE" output
-
Ok, I stopped reading at page two. There is a fatal flaw to the theory. 'E' is claimed to = ∞ = inifinity.
∞ +/- 1 = impossible. You can not add to, or take from the concept of endlessness. You can not multiply by endlessness, or divide by it. ∞ = ∞ and only ∞. There can be no other equation besides ∞ > X, X being any other number.
Let me give you a simple example. I give you one rock. Now, I point to a line of rocks that never ends in either direction. Add your one rock to that line. On the other hand, take one rock from the end of that line (as you can not take from the middle).
Now, you -could- say that ∞ =1, as there is only 1 ∞... but that is just sillyness. ∞ could also = 0, as there is an infinate amount of things that there are none of, such as Greek speaking turtles, or balls of wax the size of the moon.
/me raises an eyebrow and waits.
-
UTM, Laragorn claims that "the math doesn't matter". To paraphrase him, he's just trying to make people think about the universe in a new light.
-
Hmmm. Thinking about anything in a new light will not change the fact that it is what it is. It can only give you a better view.
-
Math is logic
And just another load of logic against it:
On common math if
E = 1
1 = 1 + 1 ?
On boolean if
E = 1 ( true )
1 = 1 + 1
1 = 1
Now if E = 0 (False)
E = 0
0 = 0 + 1
0 = 1 ?
0 != 1
One: many of the arguments used to support it go against our logical reasoning. It is just like saying "for God 1 + 1 may be 5". This breaks it apart and just put it into the realm with pseudo-science along Astrology(although even Astrology is more logically built). If you're looking for "oneness", singularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity) are a better readings.
Two: if I take a utilitarian approach, this "theory" is completely useless for the needs of mankind.
-
Two: if I take a utilitarian approach, this "theory" is completely useless for the needs of mankind.
More or less. Andrew doesn't talk about what "oneness" is in what I've read, so it's a useless and pointless theory. But if you look at the idea of "oneness" in Eastern traditions and transcendentalist thought, then I think there are certain teachings society could benefit from.
-
Actually if you look up infinity in wikipedia there is some interesting things Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinities_as_part_of_the_extended_real_number_line) and go down.
My original post about infinity showed Zanzibars sig to be bad or so I thought but it sort of works in nonstandard analysis which is mentioned a little later on that infinity page above.
-
This is what I think; we as a species don’t know ‘jack’, we twist and bend everything around us into a formula we can understand, and then preach it as fact because it is the consensus. We have been taught since birth we have so many limitations that hold back the mental growth process. The only time we see any form of progress in our understandings is by ‘rouge’ thinkers who step away from the restrictions we have self imposed. Einstein was one, Tesla was one, Edison, Bell, Marconi and the list goes on and on, the list would be greater if our history books were correct but that is another story.
We have many innovational thinkers whose theories have been ignored because they go against the accepted ‘Laws’ that are believed to be fact. There are some who have been able to gain public awareness, a group of which have participated in TEDtalks (Technology-Entertainment-Design) and have been able to reach a large audience. Two of the participants of TED touched on what I have briefly described above, one being Dawkins (http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=r_dawkins) who talks a little about What we can understand. "Queerer Than We Suppose: The strangeness of science," he suggests that the true nature of the universe eludes us, because the human mind evolved only to understand the "middle-sized" world we can observe.
Dawkins also suggests we start our children thinking in a direction we are only starting to imagine possible.
The other is David Deutsch (http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=d_deutsch), in his book ‘The Fabric of Reality’ he goes into much more detail, but in this talk, he does touch on a couple of fallacies.
One example brought up is a very fitting example, Gravity has been here since the beginning, and it took Man thousands of years to discover it. Newton did not invent gravity, it has always been here, he was only able to comprehend it and finally explain it in a manner man could understand. This 'Law' is not irrefutable, even though this was essentially replaced by Einstein's general relativity, But what if Newton was wrong? It's a long-standing question whether his law of gravity, supposed to explain everything from falling apples to spinning galaxies, might actually be flawed. That is the claim of a growing number of physicists who support a controversial alternative theory called modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND. The theory has recently overcome some serious problems that had plagued it since its inception - such as how it fits with general relativity - and it is now able to make surprising predictions about the evolution of the universe. (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:m__55apEdTgJ:www.fiz.huji.ac.il/~bekenste/%2520New_Scientist_Shiga.pdf+gravity+was+newton+right&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca)
Everything we know will change, but only if we allow ourselves to evolve the way in which we think. Hanging, burning at the stake, crucifixion, stoning and lynching are ways we treated innovative thinkers in the past; today the treatment isn’t as blatant but just as effective. Being labeled a crackpot by colleagues or being silenced by money hungry entities of great power because change will do to much damage, is no better than that listed above.
I know one response is going to be ‘so you believe anything without evidence that it's true?’ and the answer is, of course not. I will not however dismiss it immediately because it goes against another accepted theory. Believing in possibilities does not mean belief in anything that is presented or discussed, it is for me, the understanding that everything is not black and white and as Shaw puts it “all great truths begin as blasphemies” .
-
This is what I think; we as a species don’t know ‘jack’, we twist and bend everything around us into a formula we can understand, and then preach it as fact because it is the consensus.
How do you know this if humans don't know jack? ;D
And no, that's not how math works. Bad math, yes. But not real math.:)
Nothing in your post supports Andrew's claims.