[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |

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

Aug 19, 1993 12:51 PM

by Donald DeGracia

Jay! 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 solving. 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 coming! Best, Don

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