Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 In a message dated 3/9/2006 12:58:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:32:17 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain [NonDualPhil] Re: Math, Path Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:26:19 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > [NonDualPhil] Re: Math, Path > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:36:02 -0800 > > Pete S <pedsie5@> > > Re: [NonDualPhil] Re: Math, Path & Analogies > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2006, at 1:25 PM, billrishel wrote: > > > > > > > >> P: Ok! I know that in arguing about math with you, > > >> I'm getting way over my head. But axioms I can argue > > >> because they just required intuition. Axioms are > > >> math facts that we take as self-evident. All theories > > > > > > B: Axioms are *assumptions*. > > > It is actually a very interesting point that *does* have > > > bearing on nondual philosophy. Careful study of the > > > philosophy of science and mathematics reveals that there > > > are *no* known absolutes. The average person has no idea > > > of this. > > > > > > In mathematics we say: IF a, b, b THEN w, x, y, z, etc. > > > That's a big IF. > > > > P: Yes, Axioms are assumptions, I have not > > disputed that, but some assumptions are correct > > in the sense that they produce useful results, and others > > are not. Yes, again, certain modern scientific theories seem > > to coincide with certain Hindu, and Buddhist's ideas, and > > some try to use such coincidences as proof of all sort > > of mystical nonsense. The rush to certainty and the > > proliferation of fantasy is a powerful temptation for the > > incautious spiritualist. > > > > > > > > > > B: There is never any verification of any axioms in mathematics. > > > > > > In the history of mathematics this was not fully realized > > > until the time of the non-Euclidean geometries. Prior to > > > that people generally thought that the axioms (in geometry > > > they use the term " postulates " , but is the same thing) were > > > *true* and defined the inherent nature of space. But then > > > along came some guys that proved there could be a consistent > > > geometry without the " parallel postulate " . Then along came > > > Riemann who came up with a different non-Euclidean geometry > > > from the other guys, and which later became fundamental for > > > Einstein's theory of relativity. > > > > P: Well, since I'm not a mathematician maybe > > we are understanding verification differently. > > > > When I say the results verify the axiom, I'm not referring > > to results as proof of the universal truth of a > > given assumption. I simply mean that such axiom was > > the right one to use for that solution. Like in your paragraph > > above, if you want to land a rocket on the Moon, you should > > start by assuming space is curved and you should calculate > > your trajectory accordingly. If I assume I have an orange seed > > in my hand, and what I want is oranges, then getting an > > orange tree after planting it, is my verification that my > > assumption was right. That doesn't say lemon seeds are > > false and orange seeds are right. Walking to the store, > > a straight line is, still, the shortest distance between two > > points. And for such purpose that is still the right axiom. > > > > I'll let the issue rest. > > > > > > > > Do you really think such a dry, analytical response is worthy of the > > insightful mind you've been given? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > Do you really believe that there exists a 'you' that has been given a mind? > > > > toombaru > > > > > In one context, yes. > > And that there exists a you that is separate from this 'mind' that can become aware of that? toombaru Well, no, see, now we've shifted contexts. Now we're talking about consciousness that is aware of mind and mind must be an illusion. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:26:19 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > [NonDualPhil] Re: Math, Path > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:36:02 -0800 > > Pete S <pedsie5@> > > Re: [NonDualPhil] Re: Math, Path & Analogies > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2006, at 1:25 PM, billrishel wrote: > > > > > > > >> P: Ok! I know that in arguing about math with you, > > >> I'm getting way over my head. But axioms I can argue > > >> because they just required intuition. Axioms are > > >> math facts that we take as self-evident. All theories > > > > > > B: Axioms are *assumptions*. > > > It is actually a very interesting point that *does* have > > > bearing on nondual philosophy. Careful study of the > > > philosophy of science and mathematics reveals that there > > > are *no* known absolutes. The average person has no idea > > > of this. > > > > > > In mathematics we say: IF a, b, b THEN w, x, y, z, etc. > > > That's a big IF. > > > > P: Yes, Axioms are assumptions, I have not > > disputed that, but some assumptions are correct > > in the sense that they produce useful results, and others > > are not. Yes, again, certain modern scientific theories seem > > to coincide with certain Hindu, and Buddhist's ideas, and > > some try to use such coincidences as proof of all sort > > of mystical nonsense. The rush to certainty and the > > proliferation of fantasy is a powerful temptation for the > > incautious spiritualist. > > > > > > > > > > B: There is never any verification of any axioms in mathematics. > > > > > > In the history of mathematics this was not fully realized > > > until the time of the non-Euclidean geometries. Prior to > > > that people generally thought that the axioms (in geometry > > > they use the term " postulates " , but is the same thing) were > > > *true* and defined the inherent nature of space. But then > > > along came some guys that proved there could be a consistent > > > geometry without the " parallel postulate " . Then along came > > > Riemann who came up with a different non-Euclidean geometry > > > from the other guys, and which later became fundamental for > > > Einstein's theory of relativity. > > > > P: Well, since I'm not a mathematician maybe > > we are understanding verification differently. > > > > When I say the results verify the axiom, I'm not referring > > to results as proof of the universal truth of a > > given assumption. I simply mean that such axiom was > > the right one to use for that solution. Like in your paragraph > > above, if you want to land a rocket on the Moon, you should > > start by assuming space is curved and you should calculate > > your trajectory accordingly. If I assume I have an orange seed > > in my hand, and what I want is oranges, then getting an > > orange tree after planting it, is my verification that my > > assumption was right. That doesn't say lemon seeds are > > false and orange seeds are right. Walking to the store, > > a straight line is, still, the shortest distance between two > > points. And for such purpose that is still the right axiom. > > > > I'll let the issue rest. > > > > > > > > Do you really think such a dry, analytical response is worthy of the > > insightful mind you've been given? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > Do you really believe that there exists a 'you' that has been given a mind? > > > > toombaru > > > > > In one context, yes. > > And that there exists a you that is separate from this 'mind' that can become aware of that? toombaru 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.