Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 The pythagorians theorized that the substance of all things were numbers and that objects were only the perception of mathematical ratios. Curiously, this view seems to be upheld by modern physics, which affirms the only difference between one element and another is the different number of identical protons and neutron in the nucleus. And of course, each proton attracting a negative charged electron. So form is numbers. One is a point; two is a line; three, a triangle, four a square, etc. Substance is irrelevant, and numbers reign supreme as the creator because even considering that there is one underlying substance to all things, this substance, by the mere fact of having no second, is inapprehensible and therefore, moot. Only multiplicity creates. And how could this be so? Simple, think of a machine made only of iron. It's no different, in nature, from a solid chunk of the same metal , but quite different in function because the different shapes of its parts when properly assembled gives it qualities and functions absence in a solid chunk of iron. So is the universe, a living machine, created by the magic of numbers out of the same unknown stuff. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > The pythagorians theorized that the substance of all things > were numbers and that objects were only the perception > of mathematical ratios. Curiously, this view seems to be > upheld by modern physics, which affirms the only difference > between one element and another is the different number > of identical protons and neutron in the nucleus. And of course, > each proton attracting a negative charged electron. > > So form is numbers. One is a point; two is a line; three, a triangle, > four a square, etc. Substance is irrelevant, and numbers reign > supreme as the creator because even considering that there is > one underlying substance to all things, this substance, by the mere > fact of having no second, is inapprehensible and therefore, moot. > Only multiplicity creates. > > And how could this be so? Simple, think of a machine made only > of iron. It's no different, in nature, from a solid chunk of the same metal , > but > quite different in function because the different shapes of its parts > when properly assembled gives it qualities and functions absence > in a solid chunk of iron. So is the universe, a living machine, created by > the magic of numbers out of the same unknown stuff. > > Pete > > Numbers you say. Show me the number " 2 " . There cannot be any numbers without the relations between them, defining them. I believe it is more correct to view everything as being relations and only relations. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Strange, Anders, Just a moment ago I got the impression you see everything as chakras. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > The pythagorians theorized that the substance of all things > > were numbers and that objects were only the perception > > of mathematical ratios. Curiously, this view seems to be > > upheld by modern physics, which affirms the only difference > > between one element and another is the different number > > of identical protons and neutron in the nucleus. And of course, > > each proton attracting a negative charged electron. > > > > So form is numbers. One is a point; two is a line; three, a triangle, > > four a square, etc. Substance is irrelevant, and numbers reign > > supreme as the creator because even considering that there is > > one underlying substance to all things, this substance, by the mere > > fact of having no second, is inapprehensible and therefore, moot. > > Only multiplicity creates. > > > > And how could this be so? Simple, think of a machine made only > > of iron. It's no different, in nature, from a solid chunk of the > same metal , > > but > > quite different in function because the different shapes of its parts > > when properly assembled gives it qualities and functions absence > > in a solid chunk of iron. So is the universe, a living machine, > created by > > the magic of numbers out of the same unknown stuff. > > > > Pete > > > > > > Numbers you say. Show me the number " 2 " . There cannot be any numbers > without the relations between them, defining them. I believe it is > more correct to view everything as being relations and only relations. > > See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Strange, Anders, > > Just a moment ago I got the impression you see everything as chakras. > > Werner Good idea! But aren't there more than one kind of chakra, and therefore we are back into the need for relations between " separate " things. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > The pythagorians theorized that the substance of all things > > > were numbers and that objects were only the perception > > > of mathematical ratios. Curiously, this view seems to be > > > upheld by modern physics, which affirms the only difference > > > between one element and another is the different number > > > of identical protons and neutron in the nucleus. And of course, > > > each proton attracting a negative charged electron. > > > > > > So form is numbers. One is a point; two is a line; three, a > triangle, > > > four a square, etc. Substance is irrelevant, and numbers reign > > > supreme as the creator because even considering that there is > > > one underlying substance to all things, this substance, by the > mere > > > fact of having no second, is inapprehensible and therefore, moot. > > > Only multiplicity creates. > > > > > > And how could this be so? Simple, think of a machine made only > > > of iron. It's no different, in nature, from a solid chunk of the > > same metal , > > > but > > > quite different in function because the different shapes of its > parts > > > when properly assembled gives it qualities and functions absence > > > in a solid chunk of iron. So is the universe, a living machine, > > created by > > > the magic of numbers out of the same unknown stuff. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Numbers you say. Show me the number " 2 " . There cannot be any numbers > > without the relations between them, defining them. I believe it is > > more correct to view everything as being relations and only > relations. > > > > See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.