[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

About Jay's comments

Aug 19, 1993 12:51 PM
by Donald DeGracia


Hello! Welcome to the conversation! What I'll do here is in this letter
respond to the 3 seperate letters you sent.

<perhaps we should call our dimentions, spaces. since I doubt the people
who refer to them regard them as one-dintional extentions of their
predessor spaces.>

I agree here. In this context, I use the following words interchangebly:
"world", "space", "plane". Sometimes I use the word "dimension" in this
context too, but then it is very clear that I am not talking about a
variable in an equation.

<Even more interesting is the concept of super-physical operators
(Love) which generate hermitian eigenvalues>

I've thought a lot along these types of lines. At one point I was
actually trying to construct a mathematical model of human
consciousness based on quantum mechanical concepts. It entailed making
a fractal Hilbert space (believe it or not!). I needed to use
transfinite numbers though. The model fell apart when i realized that
you could not map the real numbers to the class of transfinite numbers
called "aleph knot".

However, that was many years ago.  I've since abondoned such attempts.
Since then

 I've come to the opinion that, hell, why do we need to model these
 things (i.e.  our human psychology)? I mean we *do* *expereince* them!
 It comes to the simple question, "what's the point?" I mean, lets say
 we construct a mathematical formalism that represents complex human
 psychological behaviors such as love (or more generally, emotion),
 memory, cognition, ect.  Well, so what? Does learning this formalism
 make us any better as indivdual people? Will I be kinder, more
 tolerant? Or will I, as is usually the case, become self-rightous and
 think I am better than people becuase I have this complex and obtuse
 understanding of human behavior.  See, its only a hairline away to
 becoming a fanatic and I no longer like to tread on this hairline.  As
 I've told others, anything you wish to know, any process in all of
 Nature, is within your grasp of understanding.  You don't need fancy
 machines or obtuse mathematics.  These are mere overlays that, more
 often than not, blind us from seeing the simple truth of things.  But
 any knowledge you could desire is within you already.  You want to
 know how the brain works? You want to know what the essence of
 consciousness is? You want to know if there is life after death? Do
 you want to know about the world of subatomic particles or the vast
 worlds of the stars and galaxies? Its all in you already.  All you
 have to do is learn to tap into it.  As I keep telling Gerald, the
 yogis are correct.  Their teachings lead to this knowledge.  Their
 teachings show you how to bring this knowledge into your indivdual
 consciousness.  And then, if you feel like making a machine or a
 mathematical theory, well then, go for it.  You can do that too.  But
 to expect a machine or theory to reveal to us anything but the most
 limited of truths is to be delusioned or to have a totally inadequate
 understanding of yourself as a being.

You say: < The mountain top, brought to the people in the valley is
just a rock.  Only by striving, is the truth uncovered.>

Science is for the valley people by the valley people.  Yoga is the
quest to achieve that mountain top.

And I should add to all this, Jay, that I don't expect you to just take
my word about this stuff.  I've spent a lot of time and effort learning
what I said above.  These ideas are not self evident.  I have only
found them after a lot of hard work.  The best I can do is suggest
directions of thought and study that will profit you if you decided to
pursue them.  Unfortunately, here on the physical plane, I just can't
directly transfer my understanding, thoughts and feelings to you.
Thus, the best I can do is suggest.

< Einstein's type -B dynamical systems >
Jay, what are type - B dynamical systems?

Whatever these equations are, its not surprising that they are chaotic.

It should be clarified at this point that chaotic equations are the
result of *iterating* a nonlinear equation.  We've been talking all
this chaos theory without ever defining exactly what it is and where it
comes from and how chaos math is related to traditional equation

Scientists have been using nonlinear equations since Kepler (i.e.  his
ellipses).  The difference is, these "classical" equations were subject
to the "domain/range" way to solve an equation, i.e.  plug in an x and
get out a y, and then plot x verses y.  However, the advent of chaos
theory has been the advent of computers and the ability to iterate an
equation.  Iteration means we plug in some number to the equation, call
it x, then get an answer, call it x1.  Now, we plug x1 *back* into the
equation and get a new answer, say, x2 and again plug x2 into the
equation and get a new answer, x3, and so on.  This is iteration.  And
you keep plugging in until your answer either goes to zero or infinity
or some real number, which is called convergence.  A chaos plot is a
plot of the convergence of the function under iteration at some point
in the defined domain.

So, I just wanted to define this stuff for the others out there that
may not know what we've been talking about when we say "chaos theory".
Again, the idea of "chaos" refers to the fact that two numbers close to
each other on the coordinate plane (domain) may give completely
different answers to an equation that is iterated.

Guess that's it for now.  Thanks for the comments, Jay.  Keep 'em


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application