[NonDualPhil] Math, Path

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > 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

>

>

> Wouldn´t you rather have a beer?

>

> Len

>

 

 

Life made me stop using all intoxicants.

 

 

toombaru