Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » OTHER TOPICS
The ultimate nowhere-land. Whatever doesn't seem to fit in any of the other categories, post it in here. For example, discussions on Mahatma Gandhi and the latest news on CNN should go here.

Mathematicism with Theology - - a parallel to scholasticism with theology ...



Talasiga - Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:35 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 1 2004, 12:24 PM)

(from this thread.)


.........(Even a single 1 erases all zeros.) ........



There is only one zero and one cannot erase it .....
suryaz - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:51:39 +0530
Humm [chuckle]



The zero will never but have an "other" before it, if it is to be perceived as zero
Talasiga - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:40:33 +0530
QUOTE (suryaz @ Sep 28 2004, 12:21 AM)
Humm [chuckle]



The zero will never but have an "other" before it, if it is to be perceived as zero

If you put the ONE after the ZERO nothing changes whereas the ZERO after the ONE changes much. Which is the greater then? Are they comparable?

Try to multiply 6520 by 67 using Roman numerals. Then do the same witth our modern Hindu-Arabic decimal system. Which is easier and more user friendly?

So it may be with Western and Eastern approaches to theism. In the East the "impersonal", abstract Brahman is not excluded from the Godhead just as the ZERO is necessary for a numeral construct of TEN and infinite multiplications thereof.

Even the essential differentiation of achintya-bhedabhed is bedded in unitarianism.
As such, it is all inclusive. Only a "western" slant on theism which excludes the unitarian Brahman from the Godhead raises the prospect of exclusive sectarianism.
Anand - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:19:16 +0530


Zero means pure love. I am nothing until I make myself one with my beloved.
Talasiga - Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:57:18 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM)
Zero means pure love. I am nothing until I make myself one with my beloved.

Pure love prior to God is meaningless. Like the zero before the one is meaningless.

Pure love after God's Grace is meaningful like the zero after the one:-
10, 100, 1000, 100000 ad infinitum .....
Anand - Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:12:27 +0530
QUOTE
Pure love prior to God is meaningless.


Not meaningless. It's a contradiction.
Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:48:26 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 29 2004, 02:42 PM)

Not meaningless. It's a contradiction.

A zero before the one as in "01" is a meaningless zero in as much as it does not have any effect on the numerable value which remains at "1". The "1" always has value, whether put before or after and all other numbers are based on "1".

However, the zero after the "1" increases the value.

That is to say that the "1" is the basis of meaning and the "0" is the basis of increased value. A zero prior to the "1" is meaningless BUT within the context of a relationship with one promotes value of the "1" and all identites dependent on it.

To experience Brahman within the context of Theism expands the breadth and scope of devotion. To experience Brahman outside the experience of Personality is meaningless or valueless. It is actually a contradiction.
babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:14:20 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM)
Zero means pure love.

Therefore since pure love is zero, pure love will never divide one as division by zero is a mathematical impossibility.
Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:26:33 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 12:44 AM)
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM)
Zero means pure love.

Therefore since pure love is zero, pure love will never divide one as division by zero is a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, basic maths. You cannot divide with it, multiply with it, add it or subtract it.
So the West, the Romans, did not include it as a number (because it technically isn't a number). And yet, if you give this non number a place, as in the East, it can turn the "1" into a "10", into a "100", a "1000" etc.

Likewise we can categorise two theologies:-
1. One that recognises Brahman as not being a person and therefore rejects it from its theistic paradigm
2. Another that recognises the non personal Brahman and assigns it a place in its theistic paradigm. The placement is not operational but experiential.



Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:47:04 +0530
QUOTE
To experience Brahman outside the experience of Personality is meaningless or valueless.


It is actually an impossibility.

Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1.

Zero does not mean non exitence, it means existence of emptiness and thus potential for value (meaningfulness, 1, 2, and so on)

The meaning of zero is in it being the base for one or more . Just like the example of Gadadhar Pandit being Radha empty of Her bhava; the meaning of Her existence is the perpetual potential for union.
babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:19:15 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 02:17 AM)
Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1.

But if you put another 1 in front of that zero, the value is increased 101 times.

Btw, what is the logic that a zero in front of a 1 decreases its value... especially in light of the fact that the earnings potential increases with zeros in front of the 1. The earning potential of the 1 with many zeros in front while having some risk as an investment, could provide for some handsome rewards if another 1 was to appear in front of all those zeros.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:32:24 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Oct 1 2004, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 12:44 AM)
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM)
Zero means pure love.

Therefore since pure love is zero, pure love will never divide one as division by zero is a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, basic maths. You cannot divide with it, multiply with it, add it or subtract it.

But you can multiply with zero. Zero times any number is zero. And too, you can add and subtract with zero. Its only division that is the mathematical impossibility.

Interesting note; the closer one gets to zero in one's division, the larger one's answer will be approaching - or + infinity. Could one therefore conclude that division by zero = infinity?

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.

Did Kurt Godel have anything to say about division by zero?
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:41:54 +0530
QUOTE
So it may be with Western and Eastern approaches to theism. In the East the "impersonal", abstract Brahman is not excluded from the Godhead just as the ZERO is necessary for a numeral construct of TEN and infinite multiplications thereof.


Wow, Talasiga! You have such a good understanding of brahman! Wish I could figure it out. rolleyes.gif


QUOTE
While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.


Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna? Come on! They are just *made of* Krishna's love.
babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:07:20 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:11 PM)


QUOTE
While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.


Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna? Come on! They are just *made of* Krishna's love.

Good point... maybe then zero divided by One. cool.gif
Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:08:17 +0530
QUOTE
Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna?  Come on!  They are just *made of* Krishna's love. 


Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna.
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:11:39 +0530
QUOTE
Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna.


I don't see any difference. When love becomes so intimate, it all gets mixed together.
babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:18:01 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 01:38 PM)
QUOTE
Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna?  Come on!  They are just *made of* Krishna's love. 


Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna.

Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love.
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:21:01 +0530
QUOTE
Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love.


No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool!
babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:34:31 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE
Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love.


No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool!

blush.gif huh.gif ohmy.gif wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif cool.gif rolleyes.gif crying.gif smile.gif mad.gif sad.gif unsure.gif blink.gif
Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:48:42 +0530
QUOTE
I don't see any difference.  When love becomes so intimate, it all gets mixed together.


Not so much a matter of intimacy but identity. Distincition is there simultenously with sameness.
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:59:21 +0530
QUOTE
Not so much a matter of intimacy but identity. Distincition is there simultenously with sameness.


Geez people... you gotta have an intellectual analysis of a kiss? wink.gif
Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:02:35 +0530
QUOTE
Geez people... you gotta have an intellectual analysis of a kiss? 

       


You bet.
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:04:01 +0530
Ok! Krishna and the gopis are "separate" entities, but good luck splitting them when they have become a cohesive unit. tongue.gif

I liked this quote from manjari svarupa nirupana: "If two mirrors are held face to face, as soon as some object falls between them, its reflection appears in both simultaneously; similarly the desires for conjugal union which appear in the gopis and Krsna are coinstantaneous. This is an eternal fact, nevertheless, it always increases with newer and newer freshness."

In such a love as this, can we talk about "Krishna's love" and the "gopis' love"?
Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:13:07 +0530
QUOTE
In such a love as this, can we talk about "Krishna's love" and the "gopis' love"? 


Yes, it can be talked about. That is precisely what MSN and many other literatures talk about. And will talk about, forever. smile.gif
Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:14:50 +0530
And while we are all talking, They will be busy smooching... good! blush.gif
Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:47:44 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 02:17 AM)

......................
Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1.

..............................


A zero before the 1 has absolutely no effect on the 1. You can have 20 zeros before a 1 as in 000000000000000000001. IT WILL STILL BE 1. No more and no less than if it had been written as 1.

Both Eastern and Western maths are agreed on this.
Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:00:09 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 01:02 PM)
But you can multiply with zero. Zero times any number is zero. And too, you can add and subtract with zero. Its only division that is the mathematical impossibility.

Interesting note; the closer one gets to zero in one's division, the larger one's answer will be approaching - or + infinity. Could one therefore conclude that division by zero = infinity?

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.

Did Kurt Godel have anything to say about division by zero?

Interesting thoughts booboo.


QUOTE
Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?


Bhagavan divided by Brahman = Eternity

(a la babu's speculation:) 1 divided by 0 = infinity
Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:06:47 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE
Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love.


No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool!

Darling Children! tongue.gif It is a stream called as Jamuna and one crosses it not to never return but simply to keep company! My best wishes and highest regards to you all.


flowers.gif
babu - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:34:22 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Oct 2 2004, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 01:02 PM)
But you can multiply with zero.  Zero times any number is zero.  And too, you can add and subtract with zero.  Its only division that is the mathematical impossibility. 

Interesting note; the closer one gets to zero in one's division, the larger one's answer will be approaching - or + infinity.  Could one therefore conclude that division by zero = infinity?

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.

Did Kurt Godel have anything to say about division by zero?

Interesting thoughts booboo.


QUOTE
Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?


Bhagavan divided by Brahman = Eternity

(a la babu's speculation:) 1 divided by 0 = infinity

Or division by the zero the key to understanding Mahaprabhu's inundating the world with love of Krishna.

Divide 1 pizza pie (prasadam of course) by 1/4 and you have 4 slices for 4 people... by 1/8 and you have 8 slices for 8 people but divide by zero and you can feed the world with unlimited pizza.

And so divide Krishna by zero (previous proofs established zero as pure love) and the world is inundated with Krishna prema.
Satyabhama - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:58:46 +0530
QUOTE
Darling Children!  It is a stream called as Jamuna and one crosses it not to never return but simply to keep company! My best wishes and highest regards to you all


To be frank, I am quite confused by all these aquatic metaphors...

QUOTE
And so divide Krishna by zero (previous proofs established zero as pure love) and the world is inundated with Krishna prema.


Will we still have to do math in Goloka Vrindavana? If so, I might have to start reading the Vaikuntha travel guide... Oh well, maybe if Krishna will help us with our homework? tongue.gif


Anand - Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:33:30 +0530
QUOTE
A zero before the 1 has absolutely no effect on the 1.  You can have 20 zeros before a 1 as in 000000000000000000001


It depends on your point (.) of vision.

Like this
.000000000000000000001
Talasiga - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:15:43 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 3 2004, 04:03 PM)
QUOTE
A zero before the 1 has absolutely no effect on the 1.  You can have 20 zeros before a 1 as in 000000000000000000001


It depends on your point (.) of vision.

Like this
.000000000000000000001

..... in this example of yours it is not just zeros preceding the one. There is also a dot and that signifies placement.

babu - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:12:18 +0530
Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?
Anand - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:52:34 +0530
So help me God that I never miss the point again.
babu - Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:25:34 +0530
Anand, Thank you.
Anand - Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:37:29 +0530
Babu, you are welcome.
Talasiga - Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:41:35 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Oct 6 2004, 01:42 PM)
Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?

Babuloo,
When a devotee places a dot on hisorher forehead it signifies that after (ie in the presence of) One (or other Whole number) the devotee is decimally fractionised.

1 bindi 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008
Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:35:00 +0530
QUOTE(Talasiga @ Oct 8 2004, 01:11 AM)
QUOTE(babu @ Oct 6 2004, 01:42 PM)
Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?

Babuloo,
When a devotee places a dot on hisorher forehead it signifies that after (ie in the presence of) One (or other Whole number) the devotee is decimally fractionised.

1 bindi 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008




Yes, the zero cannot be divided, cannot be shared. Every occurrence of the zero is a complete occurrence. Though the zero is not a number, the value of all numbers rests on it. This is "sunyata".

The zero is "bheda" and the dot is "abheda".

The one is "advaita". There is no number in which the one does not inhere. The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two. Not two twos but ONE two. Eternity itself is a coception of one proceeding infinitely, not only externally by accretion but internally within the one by infinite division.

"Dvaita" is the perpetual distinction between the one and the zero .......

and so it goes
braja - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:01:51 +0530
QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 10:05 PM)
The one is "advaita"...The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two.  Not two twos but ONE two.


Hmm. That is actually quite good. But the adduction is surely acintya? Or does it hint at the fallibility of #1? Surely #1 couldn't stand seeing itself adduced by a second #1? Think of the ego battle!

I can recommend a good math teacher.

[attachmentid=1303]

Attachment: Image
babu - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:08:18 +0530
user posted image

Kurt Godel
Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:21:28 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Feb 11 2005, 03:31 AM)
QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 10:05 PM)
The one is "advaita"...The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two.  Not two twos but ONE two.


Hmm. That is actually quite good. But the adduction is surely acintya? Or does it hint at the fallibility of #1? Surely #1 couldn't stand seeing itself adduced by a second #1? Think of the ego battle!

.....



The one is not diminished by any number of ones. The one remains always one. Infinite accretion does not diminish one. Infinite divisions do not obliterate one.
There is no battle in adduction! If there were, one one would supplant another one and
1 + 1 would = 1 but, in fact, 1 +1 = 2.




Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:30:20 +0530
QUOTE(babu @ Feb 11 2005, 03:38 AM)
Kurt Godel


an excerpt from this website follows:-

QUOTE
In 1931 the mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved that within a formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.
In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.


laugh.gif

angrezi - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:59:37 +0530
QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE
In 1931 the mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved that within a formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.
In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.


laugh.gif


So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist laugh.gif ?
DharmaChakra - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:03:24 +0530
QUOTE(angrezi @ Feb 11 2005, 03:29 PM)
So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist  laugh.gif ?


biggrin.gif
One thing he did was take a lot of steam out of Russel's attempts to provide logical foundations for basic mathematics. Godel has also suffered from the great void of popularism, with his works often being applied to anything and everything under the sun. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, anyone?) His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems. Applying it to the 'real world' is a little more difficult. tongue.gif
Mina - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:12:27 +0530
What I have always found mysterious is the description in Brahma Samhita of the six sided area. One would expect an eight sided area, considering the yoga pitha is an octagon and not a hexagon.

The geometric forms of triangles, nested trianges (six pointed star), pentagrams, circles, squares, hexagons and octagons all have mystical significance. Zero and one are interesting, but there are all of those other numbers such as three, eight, sixty four and one hundred eight as well. The sequence laid out by Fibonacci has such a hypnotic spell over the financial markets that people will invariably cause prices to conform to that sequence out of all possible sequences.

Any kabbalists in the crowd?
Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:34:59 +0530
QUOTE(Mina @ Feb 11 2005, 05:42 PM)
The sequence laid out by Fibonacci has such a hypnotic spell over the financial markets that people will invariably cause prices to conform to that sequence out of all possible sequences.

Have you seen the movie "Pi," directed by Darren Aronofsky?
Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:04:23 +0530
QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 04:33 PM)
Godel has also suffered from the great void of popularism, with his works often being applied to anything and everything under the sun. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, anyone?)

Gödel's results are very interesting, but, as you point out, also misunderstood. When I was an undergraduate, I took all the courses I could in mathematical logic and axiomatic set theory. I even wrote a bachelor thesis on the topic. My plan was to write a master's thesis on the possible role of mathematical logic in consciousness studies, but despite the fact that I found an enthusiastic supervisor at the Niels Bohr Institute, the project was too exotic for my department (mathematics), unfortunately.

QUOTE
His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems.

Actually, two-dimensional geometry is not a formal system, but a model.
Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:47:52 +0530
There is an amusing story about Gödel getting American citizenship, from here:

QUOTE
Gödel and the Constitution of the United States

The following is quoted from Hao Wang, Reflections on Kurt Gödel, p. 115f:

In connection with the interview for his US citizenship, he once told me that for this occasion he had studied how the Indians had come to America. Einstein and O.Morgenstern were his witnesses, and Morgenstern has told different people about aspects of the event. The following account is given by H-Zemanek and E.Köhler (see Zemanek's report, Elektronische Rechenanlagen, vol. 5, 1978, pp. 209-211). Even though the routine examination G was to take was an easy matter, G prepared seriously for it and studied the US Constitution carefully. On the day before the interview G told Morgenstern that he had discovered a logical-legal possibility of transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Morgenstern saw that the hypothetical possibility and its likely remedy involved a complex chain of reasoning and was clearly not suitable for consideration at the interview. He urged G to keep quiet about his discovery.

The next morning Morgenstern drove Einstein and G from Princeton to Trenton. Einstein was informed; on the way he told one tale after another, to divert G from his Constitution-theoretical explanations, apparently with success. At the office in Trenton, the official in charge was Judge Philip Forman, who had inducted Einstein in 1940 and struck up a friendship with him. He greeted them warmly and invited all three to attend the (normally private) examination of G.

The judge began, 'You have German citizenship up to now.' G interrupted him, 'Excuse me sir, Austrian.' 'Anyhow, the wicked dictator! but fortunately that is not possible in America.' 'On the contrary,' G interjected, 'I know how that can happen.' All three joined forces to restrain G so as to turn to the routine examination.
Talasiga - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:58:13 +0530
QUOTE(angrezi @ Feb 11 2005, 07:29 PM)
So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist  laugh.gif ?



If he disproved the belief in quintessential integration, we would need to put him in the Shunyavadi basket for the time being. laugh.gif
Talasiga - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:05:03 +0530
BTW, I have noticed the topic has attracted some mathematical types biggrin.gif . I just need to point out to you all that the topic title is "Mathematicism with Theology" and not "Mathematics with Theology". There is a difference between mathematics and mathematicism similar to the difference between scholastics and scholasticism. Of course, I am happy to have mathematicians on board but don't complain if you start sinking in the sand. You have been warned. tongue.gif
DharmaChakra - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:28:37 +0530
QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 11 2005, 07:34 PM)
QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 04:33 PM)
]His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems.

Actually, two-dimensional geometry is not a formal system, but a model.


I stand corrected. I only minored in Applied Mathematics tongue.gif
Elpis, sounds like you have done some very interesting work in this area. Care to potificate a little more, esp. on the topic of your (almost) Master's thesis?
Dhyana - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:04:29 +0530
Just discovered this fascinating thread and couldn't resist dropping in my three öre...

QUOTE
Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

Black Hole: Where God divided by zero. (Steven Wright)

(babu)
QUOTE
Divide 1 pizza pie (prasadam of course) by 1/4 and you have 4 slices for 4 people... by 1/8 and you have 8 slices for 8 people but divide by zero and you can feed the world with unlimited pizza.

This must be babumatics of the higher realms rolleyes.gif In the mundane maths, if you divide 1 pizza pie by 1/4 you get four pizzas,, not four slices...

Four pizzas ki jaya!
Elpis - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:10:16 +0530
QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 07:58 PM)
I stand corrected. I only minored in Applied Mathematics  tongue.gif

No problem. It is important, though, that there can be many models for each set of axioms expressed in a formal system. Take ZF, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory. Gödel showed that one can construct a model of ZF in which the Axiom of Choice is true. However, later Paul Cohen constructed a model in which it is false. The point is that the Axiom of Choice is independent of ZF, i.e. it is impossible to derive it or its negation from the axioms, but it could very well be true in a given model of ZF, or it could be false. If the Axiom of Choice is added to ZF, the resulting system is called ZFC.

QUOTE
Elpis, sounds like you have done some very interesting work in this area. Care to potificate a little more, esp. on the topic of your (almost) Master's thesis?

Well, since the project never got off the ground and I never ended up doing more work in that field, there is not all that much to say about it.

At one point in my education, I became tired of pure mathematics, formulas for the sake of more formulas. I wanted to branch out, use my mathematical knowledge in some other field. I was interested in spirituality and was reading various books, the BhagavadgItA, etc. Consciousness and the distinction between matter and spirit interested me. It was also around that time that I came to know the ISKCON devotees. One prominent devotee in Melbourne told me that I should just get a bachelor's degree and then become a full-time devotee, but I could not see the wisdom in that advice. I felt that I could contribute meaningfully to KRSNa consciousness by pursuing further education. I spent some time with Devamrita in New Zealand, who was also interested in consciousness studies. He asked me read articles from the Journal of Consciousness Studies and explain the parts which he did not understand to him. Later, in Denmark, Suhotra would have me read books and summarize them for him, judging whether or not the conclusions in them were sound. This made me feel that I had made the right decision in pursuing education and I wanted to make a contribution in my work. Since my background was in mathematics and I had difficulties seeing how a purely mathematical thesis would be a contribution (plus I was tired with equations for the sake of equations), I started talking to various academics and found some interest and support for a project investigating whether mathematical logic could have some use in consciousness studies. The idea was not new, others had written about this already (and, I am sure, many more since then). Mainly I wanted to see if objects and results from mathematical logic could be reasonably to the workings of the mind and whether a "transcendental" quality of the mind could be argued for in this context. Anyway, I never got the dispensation I needed from the mathematics department and I therefore turned to other things. I ended up writing a thesis on mathematical methods in Vedic ritual. I guess that that topic is not as interesting as mathematical logic and consciousness studies, though smile.gif Anyway, that and many years of Sanskrit studies enabled me to make a bridge to Indology, which I guess is where I roughly am today unsure.gif
Elpis - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:14:55 +0530
Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.
Dhyana - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:02:23 +0530
QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 01:44 PM)
Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.


Wow. Then maybe they knew something about the nature of Black Holes that we do not know... rolleyes.gif

..."dry"? Didn't you once confess to bangli (or was it babu?) that you delighted in Dionysos' gifts from an early age? tongue.gif laugh.gif
Elpis - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:59:59 +0530
QUOTE(Dhyana @ Feb 13 2005, 11:32 AM)
QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 01:44 PM)
Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.

Wow. Then maybe they knew something about the nature of Black Holes that we do not know... rolleyes.gif

According to Indian cosmology, the sun's rays extend only so many yojanas, and beyond that is darkness. Perhaps this darkness was conceived of as one big black hole... unsure.gif

QUOTE
..."dry"? Didn't you once confess to bangli (or was it babu?) that you delighted in Dionysos' gifts from an early age?  tongue.gif  laugh.gif

I did? huh.gif
Dhyana - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:31:57 +0530
QUOTE
I did?

No energy to go dig in that old thread... Okay, my memory is good but short. Sorry. blush.gif
Elpis - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:17:36 +0530
QUOTE(Dhyana @ Feb 13 2005, 03:01 PM)
QUOTE
I did?

No energy to go dig in that old thread... Okay, my memory is good but short. Sorry. blush.gif

I think the closest I came to that was citing Bachelard here smile.gif

One probably has to be careful about talking about such things here, a place where one is prohibited from mentioning wine in connection with one's guilty pleasures (see here) tongue.gif
angrezi - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:24:27 +0530
I have not progressed very far in acedemic mathmatics. Indeed I'm a bit of a mathematical moron, but the subject is still fascinating to me. When I was younger I had some psychedelic experiences that led me to believe that the external world, and maybe conciousness itself to some extent, was composed of geometric shapes and held together by a mathematical type of logic that was the product of some supreme, ultimate presence.

I concluded that these shapes and divine symmetry seen in nature and the creations of man, as well as the logical processes of creation and destruction, were somehow also exisistent in both the primordial subconscious and the superconscious. At one point I thought the circle to be the paramount spiritually important shape in psycho-geometry, and tried to convince my best friend's mother of this in a long rambling discourse when I was 15 . Reading Elpis' posts I am reminded of the spiritual-mathematic connections I used to wonder about. I somehow moved away from my mathematical intrest as I got older and into institutional religion, but it makes me wonder still huh.gif ...
evakurvan - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:42:58 +0530
If you are into these things like you are describing you would enjoy Aldous Huxley the Doors of Perception, though there is not really a mathematical aspect explored in the book. Though you probably already know this book I am typing anyway because you are mocking my other thread! That said, -for the record,- I am 100 percent against all drugs even though as an apparent buddhist I apparently should believe everything is empty so might as well eat anything since it is all just combinations of molecules anyway with no essential substance! blush.gif sad.gif
Wack me on the head while you're at it too like Prabhupada suggested, I won't feel it anyway everything is empty air to me like ghosts.
Dhyana - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:49:54 +0530
A book you would enjoy, angrezi:

Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? by Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky. Penguin Books, 1992

Both authors are mathematics professors, but the book is easy to read and the ideas fascinating!
DharmaChakra - Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:16:40 +0530
QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 09:40 AM)

At one point in my education, I became tired of pure mathematics, formulas for the sake of more formulas.  I wanted to branch out...



Not on topic, but I wanted to thank Elpis for shedding a little more light on his past. I really enjoyed the little bio biggrin.gif Your profile is a little slim tongue.gif
Elpis - Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:22:49 +0530
QUOTE(evakurvan @ Feb 14 2005, 12:12 PM)
If you are into these things like you are describing you would enjoy Aldous Huxley the Doors of Perception, though there is not really a mathematical aspect explored in the book.

Huxley's book is definitely interesting. However, Huxley took a small amount of mescaline once, and based on that he writes a book. He has many insights to offer, true, but it would be much interesting to see what happens when mescaline is ingested regularly for years and years. What kind of a reality will a person who does that experience? Did people experience a different reality before it became common to drink tea? Or before people began to eat carrots?