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

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

Jan 23, 1994 05:40 PM

by John Mead

about a month ago I received a reply from Eldon Tucker regarding a few comments which I had previously made on the relationship between space, measure theory, the axiom of choice, consciousness, physical reality, and the ring-pass-not. Due to time constraints I have not responded until now. My basic position is in direct opposition to that of Eldon's. However, I am uncertain as to the exact nature of reality, due mostly to my limited development (spiritual). With this in mind, I will submit a response. However, I do not think we (Eldon and I) will get far until we can agree on the most simple and basic ideas from which we base our arguments. I proceed to reply only to reaffirm our differences. Eldon writes: =========== >>Space is formless without attribute nor dimension. When we speak of >>a three-dimensional space we are really talking about matter that >>is restricted to behave in that manner. In thinking about mathematics >>we may picture in our minds an abstract space with three dimensions >>having an X Y and Z coordinate for every point but such a space is >>just that an abstract picture in our minds and not a living reality. The *true* test of what is real is founded on the observation that the REAL does NOT change (esp. with time). The forms and ideas developed in Mathematics are truly independent of culture, space, and time. The Mathematics developed for Euclidean Geometry (e.g. only) will be the same in the USA, Russia, or Alpha Centauri. They are the same today as they will ever be tomorrow. Our UNDERSTANDING (personal growth within consciousness) is what changes. Mathematics exists independent of the physical (manifest) world. It is a reality we DISCOVER through mental (self-examination and reflection) research. The physical reality of my personal body is much LESS (real) than the mathematical forms in which I think. >>We may apply mathematics to physical objects and find that we can >>only carry them so far. The mathematical relations and approximations >>break down after a certain point. >> >>The mathematics does describe the physical objects but just in >>general terms and for a few scales of magnification. After a certain >>point themathematics no longer applies and the nature of the object >>itself. The truth is the exact opposite. Mathematics *itself* does NOT break down. The physical reality is too impure to maintain its form (i.e. it is maya). The Math does not work (in a predictive sense within reality) because the Physical is only a mere/crude imitation of the exact forms. >>Mathematics descibes general principles and they have approximate >>application to the physical world. The nature of the approximation >>depends upon the type of object we are observing. Mathematics describes exact forms which reality approximates in a very limited way. "The nature of the approximation depends upon the type of object we are observing". (I agree with your statement only if it is put into the correct context). >>The principle of the conservation of energy implies that any >>transformation leave the same amount of energy as before unless a fully functioning consciousness is present. Then all laws (physical retrictions and integrals of motion) depend on the observer. >>We might define a plane then as the collection of lives energies and >>forces that act upon matter in such a way as to constrain it to >>take on the form and function of a world or universe and all that >>can be perceived in interacted with thereon. We might call a plane >>the range of consciousness that can be experienced within those >>constraints and using those energies and substances. The plane is the current level (or mathematical subset/formalism) of forms with which one is taking under consideration... Peace -- John Mead

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