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

Humm [chuckle]



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

Zero means pure love. I am nothing until I make myself one with my beloved.

Ok! Krishna and the gopis are "separate" entities, but good luck splitting them when they have become a cohesive unit.

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"?

And while we are all talking, They will be busy smooching... good!

Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?

So help me God that I never miss the point again.

Anand, Thank you.

Babu, you are welcome.

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

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]

Kurt Godel

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.

an excerpt from this website follows:-

So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist ?

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.

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?

Have you seen the movie "Pi," directed by Darren Aronofsky?

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.


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

There is an amusing story about Gödel getting American citizenship, from here:

If he disproved the belief in quintessential integration, we would need to put him in the Shunyavadi basket for the time being.

BTW, I have noticed the topic has attracted some mathematical types . 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.

I stand corrected. I only minored in Applied Mathematics
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?

Just discovered this fascinating thread and couldn't resist dropping in my three öre...


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

(babu)

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

Four pizzas ki jaya!

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.


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 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

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...

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

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...


I did?

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

I think the closest I came to that was citing Bachelard here

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)

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 ...

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!
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.

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!

Not on topic, but I wanted to thank Elpis for shedding a little more light on his past. I really enjoyed the little bio Your profile is a little slim

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?