dave_a_mbs
Super Member
Offline
Afterlife Knowledge Member
Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: 
|
Hi Raphael-
Yeah - occasionally I'm astounded by those who really know a bunch. I just meditate and read an occasional book, but I've been doing it for close to 70 years. You have a better start on it than I did. It took me abpout 30 years (and a loving girl friend) to convince me that there was more than just a material world.
I picked a wave mechanics model because it was fun to fool with. No big deal. First, let's look at what we're dealing with. It's just information, and the potentialities for information to relate to itself. When it does this interaction in certain ways, the properties of the clusters of ideas relate to one another just exactly as do the clusters of "real world stuff" (whatever that might be).
The first point is that when two "physical objects" interact they get "used up". BUT when two ideas intreract, they do not get used up. Both of the beginners remain intact. As an example, think of a basket. Now think of a set of wheels. Now think of a couple of handles. You have (a) basket, (b) wheels, (c) handles, and also you have (Ta Da!) a pushcart. The pushcart is formed by the synergy of the ideas. The synergic result is always something more than you started with.
Next, look at the ways that arbitrary ideas interact. Two ideas A and B form a third C (that is, combined ideas idea AB=C), so we get A, B, and C. Now let's do it again. A, B and C go together to form a, B, C (these are the beginners) and also (ab, BC, AC, ABC. So, from two beginners we get three resultants. Let's canmge the labels and call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G. So, from three beginners we get seven resultants. From seven we get 127, and from 127 we get (2^7)-1 or roughly 1.7 x 10^38 (or do you prefer 1.7E38?) etc At this point, most math books will balk and say, "Proof is left to the Reader." It can be figured out on paper, at least in principle, but it's terribly messy.
Since this is an afterlife forum, look at the other places we find the same data. In ancient Egypt, about 5000 years ago, the philosophers recognized that some things were, and some were not. So they got the idea of polarity. In their terms, this was the start of the Cosmos. First there is the vastness of limitless voidness, so vast that it cannot be filled, but within which there is potentiality for anything to occur. Second, there is the specification of anything, such as this instant in spacetime. That is so miniute and specific that no matter how we try we can never dissect it. It is a point with no parts, and with no definition except that it is Here and Now. So we get Generality and Specificity as the beginners for the Cosmos. (Their names were actually Shu and Tefnet. The Budge translation tells us that the Ultimate Creator, Nebertchur, said that he brought forth Shu and Tefnut and in them created himself by grasping himself within his own hand.) Makes me think of a Mobius strip.
So from this initial pair, we get three principles of reality, variously named. These are process, structure and relationships. (Hindus call them the Three Gunas, or Primal Properties, rajas, tamas and sattva.) The soul of the deal must pass through a passage guarded by these three Guardians, and then it enters a space guarded by the Seven Arits, or qualifications of existence. (We know them as the seven fundamental properties of physical space: process, structure, logical relations, changing relations, changing structure, fixed patterns, and spacetime relativity.)
Then the soul enters the Hall of Maat, awaiting judgement. In this hall we find Osiris, who is the collection of all properties into the Ultimate Being. Then we also have all the ways that we can put together the seven Arits. We have 42 ways that we can do it by starting with with process, 42 ways with structure, and 42 ways with relationships. That gives 126 + Osiris, so we have the 127 outcome sets. (That means that the math is OK. It fits the topic.) However, since the three ways to view them are redundant, it is only necessary to deny sinning by actions, and the sins of relationships and structures are covered automatically.
This kind of thing leads off into technicalities of definitions. Maybe the Egyptians invented lawyers, eh? However, these ideas have been around for a long time, and have been useful. A far simpler approach is simply to be joyfully creative in process, be validly logical and aware in relationships, and lovingly kind and accepting in structure.
The idea of a Fourier analysis is simply that anything can be represented as the combination of other things, and from that we get a beginning. My personal favorite is a space in which there might be time. Then that means that it has a second instant, else time doesn't occur. Now we have two beginners and can build a universe. In fact, any dichotomy can be used.
dave
|
Home
Pages: 
