Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00114)

about a month ago I received a reply from Eldon Tucker regarding a few
comments which I had previously made on the relationship between space,
measure theory, the axiom of choice, consciousness, physical reality,
and the ring-pass-not. Due to time constraints I have not responded
until now. My basic position is in direct opposition to that of
Eldon's.  However, I am uncertain as to the exact nature of reality,
due mostly to my limited development (spiritual). With this in mind, I
will submit a response. However, I do not think we (Eldon and I) will
get far until we can agree on the most simple and basic ideas from
which we base our arguments. I proceed to reply only to reaffirm our
differences.

Eldon writes:
===========

>>Space is formless  without attribute nor dimension. When we speak of
>>a three-dimensional space  we are really talking about matter that
>>is restricted to behave in that manner. In thinking about mathematics
>>we may picture in our minds an abstract space with three dimensions
>>having an X Y and Z coordinate for every point  but such a space is
>>just that  an abstract picture in our minds and not a living reality.

The *true* test of what is real is founded on the observation that the
REAL does NOT change (esp. with time). The forms and ideas developed in
Mathematics are truly independent of culture, space, and time. The
Mathematics developed for Euclidean Geometry (e.g. only) will be the
same in the USA, Russia, or Alpha Centauri. They are the same today
as they will ever be tomorrow. Our UNDERSTANDING (personal growth
within consciousness) is what changes. Mathematics exists independent
of the physical (manifest) world. It is a reality we DISCOVER through
mental (self-examination and reflection) research. The physical
reality of my personal body is much LESS (real) than the mathematical
forms in which I think.

>>We may apply mathematics to physical objects and find that we can
>>only carry them so far. The mathematical relations and approximations
>>break down after a certain point.
>>
>>The mathematics does describe the physical objects  but just in
>>general terms and for a few scales of magnification. After a certain
>>point themathematics no longer applies and the nature of the object
>>itself.

The truth is the exact opposite. Mathematics *itself* does NOT break
down. The physical reality is too impure to maintain its form (i.e. it
is maya). The Math does not work (in a predictive sense within reality)
because the Physical is only a mere/crude imitation of the exact forms.

>>Mathematics descibes general principles  and they have approximate
>>application to the physical world. The nature of the approximation
>>depends upon the type of object we are observing.

Mathematics describes exact forms which reality approximates in a very
limited way. "The nature of the approximation depends upon the type of
object we are observing". (I agree with your statement only if it
is put into the correct context).

>>The principle of the conservation of energy implies that any
>>transformation leave the same amount of energy as before

unless a fully functioning consciousness is present. Then all laws
(physical retrictions and integrals of motion) depend on the
observer.

>>We might define a plane  then as the collection of lives energies and
>>forces that act upon matter in such a way as to constrain it to
>>take on the form and function of a world or universe and all that
>>can be perceived in interacted with thereon. We might call a plane
>>the range of consciousness that can be experienced within those
>>constraints and using those energies and substances.

The plane is the current level (or mathematical subset/formalism) of
forms with which one is taking under consideration...

Peace --

John Mead