Edgar,
Ease up on the math lesson. Jim isn't with us anymore...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Human math is infinitely accurate. That's one reason it doesn't accurately
> model the actual physical mathematics which is granular at it's finest scale
> and limited in accuracy. That doesn't mean human math is somehow 'better'
> because it's the actual physical math that computes reality of everything.
>
> The computational system of reality DOES compute every aspect of reality
> because IT IS REALITY. It's a logico-mathematical computational system
> consisting entirely of information. The best analogue to understand it is
> like software executing in the Buddha Nature computer.
>
> Humans are local subsystems in this universal computational system.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:09 PM, jfnewell7 wrote:
>
> > 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/
