It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baddogma's Meta Cafe- Polite Discussions About Scientific Mysticism and General Weirdness

page: 96
82
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana




The universe isn't "math". Mathematics is an invented human language which can be an efficient means of describing and predicting behaviours.


Applied mathematics is only step Two in the universes language. I am not really talking about applied math.
Applied math is like learning 'mama' 'dada', but in time we will learn the 'physicality' of math, which will be like moving from saying baby words to being able to write a War and Peace type novel when you have the language.

Einstein used math to correctly describe gravitional waves in 1917, and only 2 weeks ago we proved the math. So in time we will move further in our understanding of math and how it IS.

To Kanzveldt, when I say 'answering questions', I am at a loss how else to describe what I describe as 'physical' math. Everything is an algorithm of sorts. Just more complex than the math we use consciously.

I don't ascribe the magnificence of THIS universe we know to divinity. But I can understand why people do. I also think it would benefit your personal search ( questions) to expand out from the start of civilization in Uruk as having the most accurate understanding of 'organic life from elsewhere propagating a certain message. ' You may find it useful to also research other older tribal and clan cultures (you may have already) as their experience is as valid. Experience is an ANSWER.
IT/IS
Question/Answer
Chaos/Order
As an example, The Australian aboriginals dreamtime is a constant tradition that we can date back to at least 50 000BP that incorporate the concept of a fixed time landscape and the experience of the observer (ancestor) in that timescape, there is no past present or future.
Uruk is simply human thought, that came from the mind, which is not our brain, but the universe/s. You are asking questions in all you are doing, in your search, everything you write here has been questions/answers, perpetuation of the infinite loop. You are being true to a universal function.
I admire all your research and questioning and have no intention of saying any is right or wrong, but see your efforts and outcomes as a required function of the universe.
I myself am a little lazy 'godling' and admit spend most of my time in this life simply enjoying being an answer


To all else in thread interested
, I do not subscribe to divine. Unless you want to describe entity that understands source as divine, then so be it. 'Understands' is an important word......'Understanding' is physical math, but now Im rambling and I have NO clue how to word it for anyone outside my own part-time maddened mind.

Ego, I described as 'devilish' but only from a humans understanding of a set of certain questions and answers. I think ego IS required. It was a question answered a while ago but it has been caught in a loop, and that in a way has led us to continue answer devilish self serving questions (emotions not understandings). I'm so sorry I find it hard to describe it any other way, and I do no justice to IT.

Ego is not required for the sentient. It is simply a human experience. I dare say that some of greatest 'divine' aspects of the universe may have no emotions and nor ego. Ego is only ONE way to answer physically a primordial physical question. There are so many more answers that require no ego. Life is not the only 'answer/outcome'. It is beyond our current understanding to know how many answers are out there.
Ego is human and it is a required function of the universe, as the question was asked, but it is only ONE of infinite functions of the universe.
Besides we all describe and understand Ego differently, my baseline for ego is different from others here, and in fact you each see it differently also, the beauty of that makes me smile in itself as it is a perfect explanation of what i am trying and in part failing to describe
.

There is static / zero or there is patterns.
Divinity I do not believe created the patterns, perhaps there are 'answers/gods' that understand greater how to 'do the math' .

Math, one day we will experience its move from explaining IT to being IT.


edit on 25-2-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Rethaya

Yes, the movie version of "What Dreams May Come" was totally off base, I had really enjoyed the book and found some fascinating 'food for thought' concepts, then the movie came out and was so screwed up, I hated it...

...I highly recommend reading the book, if you or your wife are interested in unique 'takes' on the possibilities of what the after-life might be like.

I have read a little of Robert Monroe's work, but it was so long ago - I would be interested to know if there are any particular books of his that you recommend.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I talk about "implicit structure" and explicit structure in motion. (math basically). I dress it up in mystical words, as the brain is hardwired to prefer storytelling explanations dealing with "beings".

People like it, pay attention, and sometimes get something out of it.

And in a sense it's true.

All this math talk is way cool, but only a small handful on the planet might understand it....and these people would derive it On their own from basic first principles without you and I.

In the human world, a charismatic person with 110 IQ will do better than a math genius who can't dumb it down and create colorful metaphors close to 100% of the time.

Kev



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: zazzafrazz


In the human world, a charismatic person with 110 IQ will do better than a math genius who can't dumb it down and create colorful metaphors close to 100% of the time.

Kev


I have to agree with that. Personally, in school...math made no sense to me until a $ was included. As soon as I could 'relate' to it, I was brilliant, lol. (business math/real estate/mortgages was my career at one time)

My writing and way of speaking is very, conversational...because most of my time has been spent either with children or the elderly. I found a way of communicating that made the transferral of information successful.

I devour all of the information from ALL of you (participating here), but I do get lost in the math. I simply cannot relate to it, and as a result can't process it.

Funny, I've been married to millwright/machinist/tool&die/mechanic man, and his understanding of math was completely different to mine. He couldn't grasp business math/mortgage rates, etc.

jacy



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Everyone is doing the 'right' thing by the universe by being functions of it. By perpetuating questions/answers in a infinite loop, regardless of if they a drug lord, a bum, a mystic or a math genius. The application of spirituality or atheism are irrelevant. We are all currently required functions of the universe, how can that be wrong? We apply morality for ease of existence within that function.

I enjoy everyones thoughts, questions and answers in this thread. Theirs are no more accurate nor false compared to mine. It is their action of moving from static to pattern that is their 'fluke' function, and that means we are all spot on.
The verbiage we use is just noise.

ETA



All this math talk is way cool, but only a small handful on the planet might understand it....and these people would derive it On their own from basic first principles without you and I.


Here I disagree, I believe nothing is not teachable nor should be secretive, teach this to people from when we are little and humans will fly into another direction from war and religious squabbles. We oversimplify what we teach children. They are capable of absorbing more and the abstract.
edit on 25-2-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz




To all else in thread interested , I do not subscribe to divine. Unless you want to describe entity that understands source as divine, then so be it. 'Understands' is an important word......'Understanding' is physical math, but now Im rambling and I have NO clue how to word it for anyone outside my own part-time maddened mind.


I'm definitely interested in what you're saying but I'm struggling to understand. It's probably the thought of maths, which gives me a twitch in my left eye.


Are you thinking that we have a language, which we call maths, but that we only use a fraction of that language at the moment? Our current understanding is limited and as time goes on we may (or may not) discover ever more complicated nuances of that language that further helps us to understand the universe?




There is static / zero or there is patterns. Divinity I do not believe created the patterns, perhaps there are 'answers/gods' that understand greater how to 'do the math' .


So there either is or there is not. Maths is not god's language, god is maths itself? Am I even close to what you're explaining?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe

Hmm I am going try think of a paragraph to explain it. Give me a bit. I'm not great at math if thats any consolation

BBS have to go to a work meeting.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I understand the principle of applied mathematics but i can't see the point in going on about 'physical math' unless you better explain what you mean, couldn't say i agree or disagree because i've no idea what you're on about.

Uruk wasn't simply human thought it was the application of principles to form a basis for civilization and the hard work that entailed, they'd already spent sufficient time rolling about in the mud with no notion of past, present or future, the measurement of time through astral observation and keeping of records solved those issues, this is no perpetuation of any infinite loop, there was clear understanding of making forward progression.

They had nothing to learn from traditional tribal culture as that was what they emerged from, all the traditional cults, rituals and practises were assimilated into the City state traditions according to the geographic locations were they had found natural expression.

a reply to: lostgirl

Yes well, if a Buddhist Guru had the audacity to approach Inanna and suggested that she learn to silence the chattering monkey that symbolized her ego she'd be having other ideas about which chattering monkey needed to be silenced, that's all there is to it.
edit on Kpm22955vAmerica/ChicagoThursday2529 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Again...I like your response.

I certainly agree about teaching children.

I don't like keeping *anything* secret.

But maybe 100 People might "get" David Bohm" for example is all I was saying. There is vast value in multiple metaphors was my point.

Kev



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Googling David Bohm now...uh huh...not getting him... closing tab and pretending I never heard of him, the complicated beast that he is.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe

I myself can't go all Platonic. Its just another dead end.

Sure there is both passive potential and applied dynamic structure.

(math formulations and applied functions)

But that's just one of a transfinite number of metaphors.

Sure the Greeks worshipped math (Pythagorous for example)..People tend to worship their metaphors.

*shrug*

Will post singularity humans become near divine algorithms embedded in space/time?

Sure.

And when they get there They will realize that they were already there...and their entire journey was an illusion about control.

The 65,000 year old aboriginals will roll their eyes at them...and all the other species who preceded them, by traveling beyond the rim.

Kev
edit on 25-2-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe

I consider that he was far more brillant than Einstein ever was. He was just born 500 years too early.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

You are assuming that you understand the composition and activity of Inanna'ego?

Are you saying that might makes right?

Kev



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear




Sure the Greeks worshipped math (Pythagorous for example)..People tend to worship their metaphors. *shrug*


Exactly!
They're handy things, metaphors, but they seem to get all the attention and praise, when that which they are metaphors for...doesn't. Is it just that the concept is too vast for us humans to handle or is it (like I believe) that the story and the meaning gets lost in the transmission between generations and cultures?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt




Yes well, if a Buddhist Guru had the audacity to approach Inanna and suggested that she learn to silence the chattering monkey that symbolized her ego she'd be having other ideas about which chattering monkey needed to be silenced, that's all there is to it.



Or try telling the Dagda we are all one. One headless guru would be silenced too.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: beansidhe

Contrary to all the noise...NOBODY, not even friendly local neighborhood shaman-man have ever understood much at all.

Understanding per se is not even the point.

Can we or can we not live peacefully and productively in concert with BOTH (apparent) bits and pieces AND the WHOLE or can't we.l?

We can't. At least we never have...not even in Ancient Sumeria. €We'd all be Sumerians right now if that had been true).

We need to shed this myth of the golden age---Celtic...Kundalini..Sumerian....all of it.

But can we learn bits and pieces from other cultures?

Sure thing!

Kpb


edit on 25-2-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well i do have plenty of experience of it if that is supposedly any basis for answer, but the point is that that anyone who attempts to suppress the individual expression of others to the extent of persuading them to negate their very notion of self can expect zero acceptance from a tradition which encourages such.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Indeed!

The truth is...that only by "expressing yourself" can you bounce off "others" and learn how things work.

Turning yourself to mush to run away from the unlnown, does not immerse you in the unknown.

It makes you a quitter!

But there is much to be said for "letting the sacred tree imprint your mind" --- or as I would say...let yourself live liminally.

As the tree does not live just on Earth. It is rooted in both Earth and Sky and all the empty places invetween.

Kev



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Applied mathematics is only step Two in the universes language. I am not really talking about applied math.
Applied math is like learning 'mama' 'dada', but in time we will learn the 'physicality' of math, which will be like moving from saying baby words to being able to write a War and Peace type novel when you have the language.


I don't see your differentiation, I said it is a language and you are reiterating that.


originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Einstein used math to correctly describe gravitional waves in 1917, and only 2 weeks ago we proved the math.


Yes, as I said, mathematics is a language, and it describes, and helps us to know where to look. Thank you for demonstrating my point.



originally posted by: zazzafrazz
So in time we will move further in our understanding of math and how it IS.


How what 'it' is? Those fluent in "math", I find, understand it well enough to be able to explain it in other languages, English included, hence why I recommended Osserman's book to Baddogma because it helped me similarly. Maths is adaptative, that might be useful for you to move towards understanding, it has had to be, most of the tools we invented, if they have continued to be useful, have had to be adapted. If you want to believe that maths exists outside of us, as some objective reality, that's up to you, but seems to me in that case you're swapping one imagined infallible god for another.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Anaana

A lot of scientists and empiricists are closet platonic idealists.



And the majority of reductionists have a fetish for determinism.

But, perhaps everyone should have a hobby.
edit on 25-2-2016 by Anaana because: a lack of pluralism




top topics



 
82
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join