[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 34 KB, 300x277, Oneness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3256898 No.3256898 [Reply] [Original]

Math is the creation of the limited mind wich sees divisions in the undivable transcendental reality of oneness.

There will and can never be a 2.
For all that is, was and will be is in the 1.

Math is dependant on the illusion of duality, it will never reflect any real truth. (But it has it practical value's.)

Math and logic will never succeed in grasping the essence of the universe, for they are dependant on the universe.
Without the universe there would be no logic or math.

To see beyond, you have to go beyond.
Wake up.

>> No.3256916
File: 40 KB, 400x377, derp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3256916

>untestable opinions on mathematics and the nature of reality
>he thinks he's being deep and edgy

>> No.3256913

8/10

Math is the language of the cosmos, my friend

>> No.3256928

It's called infinity, asshole.

>> No.3256936

>>3256928
Yeah incorporate some infinity into this and I'll hear you.

>> No.3256956

>>3256928
>>3256936
One infinity.

>> No.3256962

Cool deepities, broseph.
Deepities upon deepities upon deepities.

Good work.

>> No.3256963

>to see beyond, you have to go beyond
easy, we just count to infinity. o wait

>> No.3256966

>>3256913
I agree, I'm simply stating the impossibilty of understanding the limitless through a limited mind.

Science will never succeed in any real understanding. Except for the understanding of one's own ignorance in trying to, which is inevitable.

>> No.3257008

>>3256898
Then how come science is evolvingso fast. We have new invetions every day. We are still learning from the nature and exploring into deeper space everyday.. So its not like are standing still

>> No.3257011

>>3256966
You could recycle the definition of "real" understanding to claim anything is incapable of it.

Your original post has not made a single actual point.

>> No.3257010

>>3256916
Not trying to be deep or edgy, just practical.

All those modern math- and sciencefags (in general) start to annoy me, because they can laugh at the absurdities of others (see; followers of established religions) but fail to see their own ignorance.

>> No.3257032

>>3257011
I'm not here to make a point, I'm here to point out its pointless to make a point.

(Inb4: "irony&contradiction of myself", think paradox)

>> No.3257034

>>3256898
But u havent proven or made any sence of opposite just sayed you think so you should point few theories or proof that science and math is not the way to do it

>> No.3257035

ITT: psuedophilosophy

>> No.3257038

>Math is dependant on the illusion of duality

Nope. We have groups where 1+1=0. Your argument is void.

>> No.3257040

>>3257032
Why is it pointless to make a point?

And if our minds are limited as you say, how can you trust that your concept of "undivable transcendental reality of oneness" is the limited view and science and maths actually are the correct way to analyze things?

>> No.3257044

>>3257032
>>3257032
> its pointless to make a point

Why?

>> No.3257047

>>3257010
>but fail to see their own ignorance.
Spoken like someone who is not a scientist. The more you learn in science the more you realise that you are ignorant. Anyone who has spent any serious time studying science becomes well aware of the vast amount that they don't know. It is the bullshit merchants who claim to know the lot.

>> No.3257055

>>3257008
Yes I agree, I guess I was being too general.
I'm only talking about when science tries to explain the meaning of things.

>> No.3257054

>>3257047
On this same note, I sort of wish I hadn't looked into neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, because then you realize there is nothing you are not ignorant about.

Seriously though, decent post.

>> No.3257064

What is 1 without zero or 1+? All you've done is reduce reality into a null value, which is not hard to do philosophically. We can also say (as many do) the cosmos is/are God because nothing is not God, but that's a silly argument because it's equivalent to just stating a one-word sentence: "Universe." No verb, no claim, no nothing. That makes all the words in the statement value-less, just like your claim about "the 1". It neatly reduces everything so far that nothing has value, meaning the argument itself has no value. This kind of pseudo-philosophy is not difficult to create.

Now, what is *truly* interesting/informative? Viewing the contrasts evident in our reality. Chinese people were doing this thousands of years ago when they developed and studied the concept of Tao. Check it out. It neatly describes some obvious and not-so-obvious things about the way our cosmos seems to work/exist by describing contrasts and balances. PS - ancient Taoism was not supernatural. There are no Tao gods or spirits, etc. Just the real observable world. It's like the grandpa of science.

Have fun kids.

>> No.3257072

>>3257064
PS2 - I don't reference taoism out of context... I forgot to state my implication that math is fundamentally a science of contrasts and comparison. That's what counting is, and all arithmetic. bye bye

>> No.3257079

>>3257047
OP here,

I totally agree! That is what science should be.

>> No.3257123

>>3257064
Yes, I know. I have some knowledge of some kind.

They were indeed very practiacal in their approach to life in an almost scientific way you may say.

But they did realise the importance of having a clear vision, of creating awareness of expanding consciousness. Meditation is an important part of Tao. They are very spiritual but in a practiacal way (which probably is the best way for most of mankind)

Kinda similar to the buddhists, they too avoided the metaphysical stuff.

And

>> No.3257143

0=2, as the old alchemical formula goes.

>> No.3257194
File: 12 KB, 320x240, t_traveler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3257194

you must see beyond the numbers

>> No.3257206

I'm just trying to give a little resistance to the people who clinge to science, people who constantly analyze things.

>> No.3257210
File: 9 KB, 273x261, 012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3257210

>>3256898

>> No.3257242

> it will never reflect any real truth
No true scotsman fallacy. Define "real truth." All arguments with your assertions will be based on semantics until you precisely define your terms.

>essence of the universe
Any tangible aspect of the Universe can be abstracted with models (math). You are implying there is an intangible aspect of the Universe. If it is really intangible then it cannot be interacted with and thus doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. If *you* can interact with it then it is in fact tangible or it is a subjective experience. If it is tangible it can be modelled. If it is subjective it is not relevant to anyone but yourself.

> To see beyond, you have to go beyond.
Beyond what?

This is a science board. Subjectivity is not relevant here as one cannot create general principles from a subjective experience that are useful to others.

>> No.3257256

>>3257206
Is this why you embody ignorance, the opposite of analysis?

>> No.3257325
File: 26 KB, 488x391, 1270664214908.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3257325

>>3257206
>uses a computer
>doesn't like science

>> No.3257414

>>3257242
> Define "real truth." All arguments with your assertions will be based on semantics until you precisely define your terms.

Truth is changeless and independant unlike anything within the cosmos. The Cosmos is like a dream from the perspective of truth. It is there, but its not what it seems. To measure this illusion will never tell you anything about reality.

>Any tangible aspect of the Universe can be abstracted with models (math). You are implying there is an intangible aspect of the Universe. If it is really intangible then it cannot be interacted with and thus doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. If *you* can interact with it then it is in fact tangible or it is a subjective experience. If it is tangible it can be modelled. If it is subjective it is not relevant to anyone but yourself.

As I said whatever you are modelling is just a model of illusion, because you are measuring illsuion.

>> To see beyond, you have to go beyond

Beyond all limits, beyond the finite.
Beyond the appearant division of things which are based on ignorance.

To go beyond the ego and individuality,
beyond all that is tangible.

to go to the source and the goal,
for in the end all that is, IS

reality just is

It needs not to be anything or to do anything because its complete in itself and contains everything.

Even though this universe derives its existence from this reality it is still an illusion because in reality there never is, was or will be a division

You and I are not the same, but are One.
We both just fail to see.

>> No.3257442

>>3257256

I embody ignorance, that is true.

But in order to analyse there are alot of assumptions beforehand made with limited perception.

>> No.3257826
File: 1.17 MB, 845x861, 1294449231666.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3257826

>>3257064
This man is correct. Yin and Yan is how our universe works. Every part has a counterpart, there is always a two. You're thinking from inside the box, under the impression that since all in the universe is one substance, that there are no others. We live in a multiverse, a plane of virtual matter that holds real matter and constantly fluctuates within itself. For every atom there is an anti-atom, and the two hold a unique relationship that results in our being.

>> No.3257872

>>3257826
>For every atom there is an anti-atom

Proof? Pretty sure there's not any

>> No.3257891

Principia mathematica, 1+1=2

>> No.3257927

How about natural numbers defined recursively without the idea of 2?

f() = 1
f() = f() + 1

Now let's call the special case of 1 + 1 '2' and away we go.

>> No.3257960

You're thinking too macro.

Yes, at the largest extent possible everything converges to a single absolute reality.
Yet the whole of reality is built upon complete and total quantum randomness.