Facts and Laws of our understanding

[LARAGORN]

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

[Idoru]

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.

[zanzibar]

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. :|

[ThomPhoenix]

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

[zanzibar]

OMG ThomPhoenix, this thread isn't for people like you!  And the math doesn't matter!  omg omg!

[Karyuu]

Thread warning for the people who know what posts have been deleted. Chill out, and refresh your memory of some forum rules.

[Induane]

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 ).

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. 

[bilbous]

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 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.

[zanzibar]

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.

[Induane]

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.

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

[zanzibar]

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".

[bilbous]

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.

[zanzibar]

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.

[bilbous]

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?

[zanzibar]

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.