They should actually be more accurate than those computational mathematics.
Also, I am applying them to all possible forms of the universe, and within
that, the current laws of nature may be only a special case - or not. If the
laws of nature are not a special case, then the details of the forms space
takes are not covered by those mathematics. Tor example, whether Mr. Smith's
house is red or blue. In addition, the mathematics can't handle metaphorical
ideas.
Jim
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Re Cantor's infinities it's important to understand these apply only to human
> mathematics not the actual computational physical mathematics which underlies
> the laws of nature. Human math is a generalized approximation of physical
> math, and infinities and infinitesimals is one way they diverge.
>
> There can be no physical infinities. When one truly understands the concept
> of infinity this becomes obvious. The material world must be finite....
>
> Likewise Godel's incompleteness proof applies only to human math, not
> physical math. Since all subsequent states of reality are computed from prior
> states that avoids any possible incompletenesses since the definition of
> incompleteness is that it can't be computed (computationally reached) from
> prior logical states. In fact if their were any inconsistencies in the logic
> of reality reality would tear itself apart at those incompletenesses and
> could not exist. This constitutes a proof that the logic and math of reality
> is both consistent and logically complete.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:34 PM, jfnewell7 wrote:
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > I've never seen a description of a school of Hindu philosophy involving
> > boredom, but I have heard modern Americans express that point of view. It
> > might go back several hundred years to satires and comments about the
> > Christian heaven being boring and hell more interesting, which views still
> > exist.
> >
> > One Tibetan theory is that it was an accident. Mind was one, and then
> > accidentally moved. Mind decided that the movement was another mind.
> >
> > I suppose my current leading theory comes from Cantor's discovery of three
> > sizes of infinity, with an implication that there might be further sizes.
> > The smallest infinity is the infinity of all rational numbers. The infinity
> > of all irrational numbers is larger. The infinity of all possible shapes is
> > the largest.
> >
> > What I am afraid this might mean is that the number of moments of time is
> > only equal to the infinity of rational numbers. However, counting the
> > overall form of the universe and smaller forms, the number of possible
> > universes is equal to the largest infinity, that of all possible shapes.
> >
> > In such a situation, even living forever, a mind can only be in a very
> > small number of possible universe forms. There are still an infinity of
> > possible alternative universes that mind will have to forgo.
> >
> > So if mind has to winnow down the number of forms it actually experiences,
> > never experiencing an infinite number of other forms, what
> > experiences/universes does mind choose? Mind might choose not very good
> > forms and reject better forms.
> >
> > So we are experiments in trying to choose better forms and not choose worse
> > forms. Each of us chooses a life of forms, and then the results of all
> > those lives are looked at to see what choices were best.
> >
> > And more important, to try to discover ways to choose adequately good forms.
> >
> > Remember, all the forms are emptiness, so whatever we choose is
> > Buddha-nature.
> >
> > However, that is a very tentative hypothesis.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > What you say puts me in mind of Hinduism.
> > >
> > > You know about Hinduism?
> > >
> > > I think that, the One thing (that there is) was really bored with being
> > > just One. It could have no experience. It was / there was the same thing,
> > > over and over. There weren't even individual DAYS, on which you could
> > > begin with a delicious cup of coffee, and start fresh, and expect new
> > > experiences. No. There was just, well, nothing. That gets OLD pretty
> > > quick, and even quicker than that, when there is no Time.
> > >
> > > So, the thing threw up its hands, realized it had hands, and started to
> > > throw bits of itself to all quarters, all the Ten Directions.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, when we awaken, we experience the same Emptiness that the poor
> > > old "One" did. But we note other faculties, basic human ones, which we
> > > could never sense before. They were previously covered-up, by all the
> > > sensations made by movements in what we call our "mind", our head. Very
> > > distracting, and having no "bearing" on the basic stuff except that they
> > > cover it, cover it up, like ugly Lead paint on the beautiful wood-grain I
> > > once talked about.
> > >
> > > And, in and during awakening, although the intimacy with things and
> > > beings is now perfect and complete -- no boundaries, no gaps -- the
> > > emptiness which reigns can begin to be a bore. You might even treasure
> > > the opportunity to have a "thought", again. But you cannot. You cannot
> > > even force yourself to do this, or you cannot force a thought to form. It
> > > is IMPOSSIBLE!
> > >
> > > But the charade is seen through, the mystery is DISsolved: we know who we
> > > are. This bit of the One thing recognizes itself. It can't hide. But it's
> > > been fun -- and painful! -- hiding. It's all been part of HAVING SOME
> > > EXPERIENCE, which is better than none.
> > >
> > > Depending on the strength of the opening, the awakening lasts for weeks,
> > > or months; or longer if you keep up Samadhi-practice. But usually, the
> > > awakening erodes, as we *DO* too much in our day, not knowing yet the
> > > required amount of maintenance-dose of Samadhi that is
> > > naturally-necessary to remain maximally open without intermittence.
> > >
> > > And, maybe weeks or months was ENOUGH (imagine THAT!). So, we eventually
> > > are able to have a thought, again, and we feel as if it's possible even
> > > to HOLD a thought in mind, again. That is: TO BE HUNG-UP! And, we like
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Then, onward in the un-awakened state, we find that the un-awakened state
> > > is really not so bad. We don't wish to escape it as much as before, to
> > > attain an awakened state. We continue to practice, but we're walking a
> > > line, keeping a balance between an utterly boring and empty state, and a
> > > very painful, busy, be-clouded and deluded state. Ah, but we know the
> > > ground beneath us, beneath everything, now. We've seen it clearly and
> > > lived from there, without distractions.
> > >
> > > So maybe we go on another intensive practice retreat with teacher and
> > > sangha, and practice hard, again. Awaken a second time, or tenth. This is
> > > starting to be more and more familiar. We are learning. We know the
> > > buttons to push, and when to leave the buttons alone. We can pace
> > > ourself, like a good runner. And we understand what ancestors meant and
> > > what teachers mean when they speak about "using everything freely", and
> > > "our original human inheritance", "Emptiness", and "Delusion", and "our
> > > eyebrows entangled with theirs". Also, Compassion, Wisdom, and The Pure
> > > Land.
> > >
> > > Well, Jim, I've swung here from theory (Hinduism), to practice, and then
> > > back to some concepts. I hope it's all Buddhist. ;-)
> > >
> > > I'm a little dizzy, now. Tea-time!
> > >
> > > --Joe
> > >
> > > PS For a fun read, I recommend a re-reading of Alan Watts', THE BOOK.
> > >
> > > > "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you Joe, but I don't understand a lot of what it probably
> > > > implies. The assumption I take from the references I first posted is
> > > > that everything that exists emerges from the Buddha-nature = ground.
> > > > Therefore, some kind of potential for everything that exists must be in
> > > > the Buddha-nature = ground. So there must be a potential for change in
> > > > the Buddha-nature = ground.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
