Posts: On Principle Mathematics

Posts on Principle Mathematics:

Edited for brevity and privacy

 

Some ideas have been kicking around in my head for years, or even decades, and once in awhile I manage during the course of a conversation to put them into words.  More or less.

 

Unfortunately, my time is generally taken up almost entirely by the need to defend myself from people who are bent on enslaving my mind via bio-electromagnetic weapons, so I don't really get  the opportunity to properly work things like these ideas up into something more respectable.

 

Occasionally I do, however, manage to put something down in a post and save it as notes to be drawn upon at some later date as the ideas take shape. They're difficult ideas to put into words, actually, but over time they're becoming a little less so. They're difficult but worthy concepts, in my imagination. What follows are from posts from discussions about such questions as do space and time actually exist, or are they simply experienced by the human mind as though they did.

 

I can only wish that I had more time to present these ideas in something other than the rather ad hoc manner in which they appear here, as parts of posts.

 

 

Post One: Principle Mathematics 

 

My question about God's philosophy ... let's suppose that humanity really must do two things in order to arrive at his own philosophy. First, humanity has to be self aware, and self defining, that is, we have to know something about being human, and then we have to think about what the good life is for a human. So I posit that it must be the same for God, that He must know that he is God, has defined what sort of God He is or should be, and has at some point asked Himself, even as God, about the meaning of His own existence.

 

Now, if you just woke up one day and you were God, and there was absolutely nothing else, just darkness all around, well, anyone would begin to think that there must be something or someone else to give our existence meaning. But, now imagine this, for all intents and purposes everything that one created would be from one's own mind, and so have it's sole existence in one's own mind.

 

This would have given rise to such expressions as that the world is an illusion as the Buddha said, or all is mind as was offered by Hui Neng. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

 

Essentially, if The Mind of God was First Cause, and everything proceeded from said Mind, then everything still resides within that mind. This explains, perhaps, ideas about the universe being a singularity.

 

So then, IF all of this is true, what might God's philosophy be? Can it be sort of back engineered by observing everything that exists, exists in His Mind?

 

Now, let me just throw this in. That perhaps few people dare to consider God's philosophy in such a manner because we might be setting God up for failing our tests for humanity.

 

But now let's suppose that exploring this line of honest reasoning to be a worthwhile endeavor, "What must God's own philosophy be?" but let me be even more daring and suppose that, whatever God's philosophy should be to all humanity is what that philosophy would actually look like.

 

Now what God's philosophy should be, of course, is highly arguable, but here I am being quite specific to say that it should be something that all of humanity could agree to by sheer reason and logic, and that if we actually understood it... " all men would have reason to give God praise."

 

Trying to keep this "all things" post shorter, here I suppose that God's philosophy and human reasoning, conscience specifically, are much the same. That is that one has given rise to the other.  Here I posit three great principles above all the rest:

 

The first great principle to be love.

 

The second great principle to be righteousness.

 

The third great principle to be mercy.

 

And that from the resulting dynamics of these principles we have derived such things as justice and healing and any other higher principles in descending order.

 

And that if this was not the way it really was, that if this was not God's own philosophy...

 

Then it should be.

 

Principle mathma, I call it. 

 

So, if such aphilosophy of principles should be something such as I've here stated, are agreeable enough to everyone as the basis for human conscience and reasoning...

 

Then I suppose that if that is where God should be, that this is where GOD would be.

 

Now, in keeping with our principle mathematics, I posit also that this very notion of God is what America's founding fathers had in mind as Diests. And if it were not, then it should have been. But I am  both daring enough and researched enough to believe that it was. And to think also, that this occasion calls me to face myself more than anyone else, because I cannot seem to deny that, if I do not believe such notions as I have written here, then I should have believed such notions as I have written here.

 

 

Post Two: Principle Mathematics

 

It occurs to me that Newton probably saw within the Bible types of mathma, mathma which means the study of everything, and is the root word of mathematics.

 

Various types of numerology occur in the Bible, the well known gematria, but also some evidence of numerology which seems to occur in a great variety of ancient cultures for some reason, but it isn't modern pop numerology.

 

The ancients, for example, often planned provinces and states into 12 districts, 12 being the number of diversity, probably the notion originated with a common astronomy/astrology of the time. It may explain why there were 12 Hebrew tribes, why Jesus had 12 disciples, and perhaps even why we count by dozens or have juries of 12 persons. Essentially, they saw it as the number of diversity.

 

Somewhat connected to this sort of ancient numerology also, perhaps, were the beginnings of sacred geometry. All of it, seemingly having some basis or another, perhaps in the number twelve, the basis was astrological, about the number of months and so forth.

 

Such observations have led me to work on a system of principle mathematics that would, in theory, tell us what about any religious belief was justifiable -or less so- somewhat mathematically, and would explain, to some extent or another, what the ancients were saying.  The esoteric notion of nonduality seems to dovetail quite nicely with the exoteric scientific notion of the universe being a singularity.

 

The Muslims, I believe, were thinking along these lines when they developed the number zero. That once there was nothing to count, there was only one thing to count, which was the everything, hence they employed the sphere as a symbol of such paradoxical nonduality. The act of counting itself becomes not so much addition, as so much subtraction from the singularity so as to conceptualize perceived groupings within the singularity that are only relative to perception, whereas religious thought tends towards nonduality which exists beyond our immediate perceptions.

 

If the universe is a singularity, then it must also be a nonduality. In principle mathematics I posit three essential religious/philosophical principles of nonduality which give rise to infinite geometric equations based on the dynamic interplay of these first three principles, which are love, righteousness and mercy, from which are derived more principles such as justice and healing and so forth. Once the dualistic bias is removed from any religion it begins to make more rational sense, especially now that we understand ourselves to be both living within, and as a part of a singularity/nonduality without. It occurs to me that perhaps some similar notion was on Newton's mind when he offered his Unitarian thoughts.

 

If you don't mind my saying so, I think that you are probably someone who could really appreciate the fine work of Michael S. Schneider in A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe, which contains historic references to the use of various geoms within ancient cultures, and in the natural order.

 

If one posits intelligent design then we could postulate that everything in the universe has purpose. I've never believed, for example, that 90% of the human brain does nothing, or that the appendix is purposeless, as some scientists have put forth. In the forests we see that nature is never wasteful, I then apply this hypothesis to the universe, that it is a living system in the sense that all things have purpose. By this I mean that there would be a relative stasis of the amount of matter contained within it, to use an example.

 

We know that stars are impermanent, and most likely so are planets, this due to a number of factors, say that perhaps asteroids are at least sometimes caused by supernovas and the like. While part of the natural system would cause such free floating matter to collect into spherical shapes we know as planets, some of the debris would also be drawn into black holes and disintegrated into the finest matter possible so as to provide the system not only with new planets, but new fine matter, probably the finest particles possible.

 

If the universe came into being by way of one explosive event, and yet there remained a single star with enormous gravitational pull, the debris would go only so far and no further as there would be no opposing gravity outside of the event. But if the greatest source of gravity was at the center of the big bang, where it occurred, the universe would both expand and contract rather perpetually, giving the precise balance achieved between energies which are pushing and energies that are pulling, at least for a very, very long time.

 

The event could easily leave the outskirts of such a universe in such a state that it both expands and contracts, first one and then the other. Since the surface of that universe, if we could call it that, would be the largest possible area, it could easily use that perpetual motion to create a form of energy that would then find differing modes of expression by it's various combinations arising from a great variety of dynamics, and quite possibly complete a cycle which replenishes in some way the enormous star which I posit must be in the center of the universe holding it together from it's point of origin. I refer to this theory as center point universe.  

 

In order to see such possibilities, one has first to posit intelligent design sans anything Biblical or otherwise religious, which is why the theory hasn't been previously explored. The prevailing anti religious bias in science prefers to see such matter as rock as simply dumb matter arriving by happenstance rather than as a skeletal structure intended to support the rest of a living organism such as earth. It seems quite strange to me that Newtonian science feels that it owes so little to Newton himself in this regard.

 

 

Post Three: Principle Mathematics

 

For some string theorists the strings seem to appear as a confusing ball of yarn, but I think it's worth considering that these may be in some way strings of information, which would then be tied to some form of logical process other than our own. The strings being less like building blocks than like poetry.

 

If this were true, then it would likely be at some level that all principles in the universe began at one point, and the results then, if the logic holds true throughout, would be fairly mathematical, that is, all principles could be retraced to the original philosophy/theosophy that created the strings and the resultant principles.

 

None of this has necessarily to do with ancient writings about such things, about religion, neither proving nor disproving them, although the results of such queries might serve to illuminate them in ways previously unimagined.

 

This might explain no few observations about our universe, that it seems to have a certain ordering in natural systems that is beyond description, but also highly compelling.

 

Gregory Bateson said that the problem with trying to describe a natural system was that it was so very dynamic, or words to that effect. In one box, where there are pool balls and wooden spoons or whatever, are the things which are easy to describe. But in the other box are things far more difficult to describe, say a crab, living things, difficult to describe or define due to their complicated sets of dynamics. Bateson and Capra both concluded that such dynamics were so complex that the ancients like Lao Tzu described them with complex comparisons to things sharing similar dynamics, that is, they described things in terms of metaphors. And spoke of some unifying factor or force which could be observed through careful attention to natural systems.

 

All of this perhaps because it is difficult to identify any first cause that would essentially unify everything being from some point of origin, or to describe what would necessarily be the most complex of all intelligent life forms, whether God, or Universe, and probably why the Buddha said not to bother with queries about first cause, because they would lead to conundrums of indescribabilities. Therefore we see the effects, but have yet to be able to adequately understand, let alone describe the cause. The grander the complexity of things, the more likely they are to seem paradoxical until the nature of what we thought was paradox is understood to havesome purpose as part of an overall system, and this would be true not only in matters of philosophy or religion, but as concerns everything else about the universe as well.

 

Here once again I refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that if particles and waves are to any extent at all performing due to our expectations, then prior to the universe being formed there would be nothing at all to inhibit the expectations of a first prexisting mind, unlike those that would follow after in a universe which exists not only because of what is there but also because of what is not, apparently limitations imposed by first mind in order to define creation, the yin and yang of things, apart from which there would be no creation at all, only absoluteness. Space/Time itself would appear to us in this manner; it is more a matter of limited perceptions for the sake of continuity than as an actuality, existing due to the limitations of mind which were necessary to create any relevance to individual perceptions, which themselves would not exist sans such limitations.

 

All of this is a departure, of course, from Newtonian or Descartian science, for the most part, but also seems in my opinion to somewhat unify them. 

 

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

 

 

Renunciation of thinking is a declaration of spiritual bankruptcy.
Albert Shweitzer

 

 

Any religion or philosophy which is not based on a respect for life is not a true religion or philosophy.
Albert Shweitzer