What if science/mathematics is necessarily the same thing as spirituality/religion?

Arg, I wrote a whoooole post concerning this and it's lost. But consider this. A brief synopsis of the page or so that I wrote (I don't have the time to redo it all, but I really want to discuss this. It may be a little jumbled, but think about the big picture):

I had this thought the other day (title of the post). I was led to it by my study of Buddhist principles over the past year and few months. I have yet to read about Objectivism, but I was led to it by political media referencing Ayn Rand, and it seems to contradict Buddhist principles on the basis that the nature of being is only within the self. Consider zero, perfect nothingness. Buddhism holds that in becoming 'nothing', we realize that we are everything, and holds a general model for spirituality that is common across religions of the world, if properly understood. Zero is a concept that surfaces in ancient cultures across the world. Consider the size of the current moment, it may be represented only by the perfection of zero, and in our lifetimes we experience an infinite number of current moments. The past is gone, and the future is not here yet, there is only the perfect, immeasurable, now. Like one of those calculus problems with the rocket, where it occupies an infinite number of positions in a finite amount of time and distance. Consider that the best representation of zero may be a perfect circle, impossible in the physical world, perfect nothingness, and like a ring, having no beginning, and no end.
If everything that happens to you is the best thing that can happen to you (Chris Prentiss, 2009, an awesome book), then everything that happens is the best thing that can happen. And so everything that can happen, happens. Consider the implications for the human perception of 'time', and whether or not it really exists...

I saw a meme on facebook about a year ago (I know, hardly credible information, but hear me out) that said that an interview with a Mayan elder purportedly held that beginning in December 2012 we will gradually move out of the age of the fourth sun (materialism) and into the age of the fifth sun (enlightenment). Its not an apocalypse theory, nor is it good or bad, it simply is. And if the ancients really did base their knowledge off of astrology, using math to form spiritual beliefs, then this may be the most credible and rational explanation of what they meant to convey.

As I was investigating the basics of Objectivism, I began to have these thoughts. Then one night, I had them on my mind as I was going to sleep, and was half asleep and half awake while pondering all this (kinda weird state of consciousness, hard to explain). I was pondering philosophy, science, and politics, and how they all play into each other, and I awoke suddenly from this state, close to such an idea, but couldn't fully put it together. It took me a couple of days of consideration, and then it hit me. So I googled 'what if math and spirituality are the same thing?' and read the first link it turned up. Google it now and read it, I can't post links. Its called 'The Nothing That Is Everything'. Mr. Wiley explains it beautifully, better than I ever could, though I do not have particular skill with mathematics.

I don't think it can be any other way... If we are to seek to become nothing, in order to realize that we are everything, then this would be a perfect mathematical statement of such. All the world's religions (rightly understood) as well as math and science would be right...

This is not nearly as well written as what I had when I started writing, but the main ideas are there (most of them, I think) and this post has been kind of rushed.

I would like to hear what others think of such an idea. And also, if you have an understanding of Objectivism, I would particularly like to hear from you. Read the article if you haven't already, it explains it quite well. I would appreciate your input, and thank you for reading all of this.

I don't know if what anything you said actually makes sense. How is it not a contradiction to say that by becoming nothing you become everything?

To become nothing means to let go of your ego, your attachments, your fear, your desire... these things create suffering, and to become nothing means to free yourself from them. By doing this, you realize that you are one with everything. It is the essence of spiritual enlightenment, and what the religions of the world are designed to guide people to. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever... the goal is the same. Read the article, like I said, I can't post links, but it is easily found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

To become nothing means to let go of your ego, your attachments, your fear, your desire... these things create suffering, and to become nothing means to free yourself from them. By doing this, you realize that you are one with everything.

---

What does it mean to let go of your ego and attachments?

Completely letting go of fear seems quite difficult, given that there are a multitude of things a person can fear in life. I doubt anybody can conquer all of them, or even a majority of them. And getting rid of desire seems blatantly impossible. Do we not all desire SOME thing? It could be something as simple as food and water.

Want to know what is really being said of 2012 by Mayan elders? This is the article that was connected to the meme, I found it:

What the Mayan Elders are Saying About 2012 by Carlos Barrios from http: // www . seri-worldwide . org / id435 . html (spaced out so that it will not be a link)

Carlos Barrios, Mayan elder and Ajq'ij (is a ceremonial priest and spiritual guide) of the Eagle Clan. Carlos initiated an investigation into the different Mayan calendars circulating. Carlos along with his brother Gerardo studied with many teachers and interviewed nearly 600 traditional Mayan elders to widen their scope of knowledge.

Carlos found out quickly there were several conflicting interpretations of Mayan hieroglyphs, petroglyphs, Sacred Books of 'Chilam Balam' and various ancient text. Carlos found some strong words for those who may have contributed to the confusion:

Carlos Barrios: "Anthropologists visit the temple sites and read the inscriptions and make up stories about the Maya, but they do not read the signs correctly. It's just their imagination. Other people write about prophecy in the name of the Maya. They say that the world will end in December 2012. The Mayan elders are angry with this. The world will not end. It will be transformed."

"We are no longer in the World of the Fourth Sun, but we are not yet in the World of the Fifth Sun. This is the time in-between, the time of transition. As we pass through transition there is a colossal, global convergence of environmental destruction, social chaos, war, and ongoing Earth Changes."

He continues: "Humanity will continue, but in a different way. Material structures will change. From this we will have the opportunity to be more human. We are living in the most important era of the Mayan calendars and prophecies. All the prophecies of the world, all the traditions are converging now. There is no time for games. The spiritual ideal of this era is action."

Carlos tells us: "The indigenous have the calendars and know how to accurately interpret it -- not others. The Mayan Calendars comprehension of time, seasons, and cycles has proven itself to be vast and sophisticated. The Maya understand 17 different calendars such as the Tzolk'in or Cholq'ij, some of them charting time accurately over a span of more than ten million years.


"All was predicted by the mathematical cycles of the Mayan calendars. -- It will change --everything will change. Mayan Day-keepers view the Dec. 21, 2012 date as a rebirth, the start of the World of the Fifth Sun. It will be the start of a new era resulting from and signified by the solar meridian crossing the galactic equator and the Earth aligning itself with the center of the galaxy."

At sunrise on December 21, 2012 for the first time in 26,000 years the Sun rises to conjunct the intersection of the Milky Way and the plane of the ecliptic. This cosmic cross is considered to be an embodiment of the Sacred Tree, The Tree of Life, a tree remembered in all the world's spiritual traditions.

Some observers say this alignment with the heart of the galaxy in 2012 will open a channel for cosmic energy to flow through the Earth, cleansing it and all that dwells upon it, raising all to a higher level of vibration. Carlos reminds us: "This process has already begun. Change is accelerating now and it will continue to accelerate.

If the people of the Earth can get to this 2012 date in good shape without having destroyed too much of the Earth, we will rise to a new, higher level. But to get there we must transform enormously powerful forces that seek to block the way."

The date specified in the calendar Winter Solstice in the year 2012 does not mark the end of the world. Many outside people writing about the Mayan calendar sensationalize this date, but they do not know. The ones who know are the indigenous elders who are entrusted with keeping the tradition.

Carlos tells us: "The economy now is a fiction. The first five-year stretch of transition from August 1987 to August 1992 was the beginning of the destruction of the material world. We have progressed ten years deeper into the transition phase by now, and many of the so-called sources of financial stability are in fact hollow. The banks are weak. This is a delicate moment for them. They could crash globally, if we don't pay attention. Now, people are paying attention."

The North and South Poles are both breaking up. The level of the water in the oceans is going to rise. But at the same time land in the ocean, especially near Cuba, is also going to rise. Carlos tells a story about the most recent Mayan New Year ceremonies in Guatemala. He said that one respected Mam elder, who lives all year in a solitary mountain cave, journeyed to Chichicastenango to speak with the people at the ceremony. The elder delivered a simple, direct message. He called for human beings to come together in support of life and light.

"Right now each person and group is going his or her own way. The elder of the mountains said there is hope if the people of the light can come together and unite in some way. We live in a world of polarity -- day and night, man and woman, positive and negative. Light and darkness need each other. They are a balance."
"Just now the dark side is very strong, and very clear about what they want. They have their vision and their priorities clearly held, and also their hierarchy. They are working in many ways so that we will be unable to connect with the spiral Fifth World in 2012."

"On the light side everyone thinks they are the most important, that their own understandings, or their group's understandings, are the key. There's a diversity of cultures and opinions, so there is competition, diffusion, and no single focus."

Carlos believes the dark side works to block unity through denial and materialism. It also works to destroy those who are working with the light to get the Earth to a higher level. They like the energy of the old, declining Fourth World, the materialism. They do not want it to change. They do not want unity. They want to stay at this level, and are afraid of the next level.

The dark power of the declining Fourth World cannot be destroyed or overpowered. It's too strong and clear for that, and that is the wrong strategy. The dark can only be transformed when confronted with simplicity and open-heartedness. This is what leads to unity, a key concept for the World of the Fifth Sun.

Carlos said the emerging era of the Fifth Sun will call attention to a much-overlooked element. Whereas the four traditional elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water have dominated various epochs in the past, there will be a fifth element to reckon with in the time of the Fifth Sun --- that element is 'ETHER'.

The dictionary defines Ether as a "hypothetical substance supposed to occupy all space, postulated to account for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space." Perhaps it could be defined as the "space between space". I would suggest it could be manifest as the alignment of charged particles from our solar system (Sun), and our galaxy (Milky Way) surge. The Ether element represents spiritual energy.

"The element of the Fifth Sun is celestial. Within the context of Ether there can be a joining of the polarities. No more darkness or light in the people, but an uplifted unity. But right now the realm of darkness is not interested in this. They are organized to block it. They seek to unbalance the Earth and its environment so we will be unready for the alignment in 2012."

"We need to work together for peace, and balance with the other side. We need to take care of the Earth that feeds and shelters us. We need to put our entire mind and heart into pursuing unity and unity now, to confront the other side and preserve life."
"We are disturbed -- we can't play anymore. Our planet can be renewed or ravaged. Now is the time to awaken and take action. Everyone is needed. You are not here for no reason. Everyone who is here now has an important purpose. This is a hard but a special time. We have the opportunity for growth, but we must be ready for this moment in history."

Carlos says: "The prophesied changes are going to happen, but our attitude and actions determine how harsh or mild they are. We need to act, to make changes, and to elect people to represent us who understand and who will take political action to respect the Earth."

"Meditation and spiritual practice are good, but also action. It's very important to be clear about who you are, and also about your relation to the Earth. Develop yourself according to your own tradition and the call of your heart. But remember to respect differences, and strive for unity. Eat wisely --- a lot of food is corrupt in either subtle or gross ways. Pay attention to what you are taking into your body. Learn to preserve food, and to conserve energy. Learn some good breathing techniques, so you have mastery of your breath. Be clear. Follow a tradition with great roots. It is not important what tradition, your heart will tell you, but it must have great roots."

"We live in a world of energy. An important task at this time is to learn to sense or see the energy of everyone and everything -- people, plants, animals. This becomes increasingly important as we draw close to the World of the Fifth Sun, for it is associated with the element 'ether' -- the realm where energy lives and weaves. Go to the sacred places of the Earth to pray for peace, and have respect for the Earth which gives us our food, clothing, and shelter. We need to reactivate the energy of these sacred places. That is our work."

"One simple but effective prayer technique is to light white or baby-blue colored candles. Think of a moment in peace. Speak your intention to the flame and send the light of it on to the leaders who have the power to make war or peace."
Carlos reminds us this is a crucially important moment for humanity and for Earth. Each person is important.

He said the elders have opened the doors so that other races can come to the Mayan world to receive the tradition. "The Maya have long appreciated and respected that there are other colors, other races, and other spiritual systems. They know that the destiny of the Mayan world is related to the destiny of the whole world."

"The greatest wisdom is in simplicity. Love, respect, tolerance, sharing, gratitude, forgiveness. It's not complex or elaborate. The real knowledge is free. It's encoded in your DNA. All you need is within you. Great teachers have said that from the beginning. Find your heart, and you will find your way."

The ice caps are melting much faster than we thought, go to huffingtonpost.com, im sure you can find the article, it just came out today. But also, the unemployment rate seems to have taken a drastic turn for the better, but some certain naysayers would disagree. Whether or not you believe any of this is completely up to you, you can call me and the guy who wrote the article crazy, you won't hurt my feelings :P. It's really not so far fetched, though. If you believe there could be even a grain of truth though, think about who it is who might be trying to cling to the age of materialism... some people who want things to stay like they are, and are opposed change... who have been saying some pretty terrible things the last few months... MAYBE they're the same people who would praise Ayn Rand and Objectivism, which stand counter to human connectedness...

Blueline: it is indeed difficult, seemingly impossible. Enlightenment isn't really all or nothing, its a process. Death is the ultimate enlightenment, but through working toward enlightenment in life we may become 'awakened', like finding God. Read some on Buddhism, Thich Nhat Hanh is a wonderful author, Deepak Chopra, the Chris Prentiss book 'Zen and the art of happiness' I mentioned is really good too. You could also find out what it means by doing some googling on Buddhism or one of those authors :)

EDIT: Think of Mother Theresa

The human race has a long way to go for enlightenment, especially the people Im used to dealing with. The government doesn't want the people to become enlightened, they want us stupid and fat so they can go on controlling everything. I'm not sure who this Chris prentiss is, but if he thinks that everything that happens to you is the best thing that could happen, he's dead wrong. What kind of privileged life must you live in order to believe that load of bull? Go tell that to the kids that get abducted from their homes. The women who are beaten and raped so the rapist can feel good. All the victims of every senseless act of violence that has ever occurred. That right there is enough to disprove that ridiculous theory.

The things that happen to a person are a combination of chance, and concentrated power of will. Don't come at me with this "everything happens for a reason" bullshit either. In order for everything to happen for a reason, your thoughts would have to not be your own. Thoughts are the predecessor to action, so in order for something to happen physically, it must happen mentally first. Free will would be a mere illusion if the world worked that way. Wake up sheeple...

So you haven't read the book... Are you so sure that you have completely considered the statement? However reprehensible and offensive to our sensibilities what you mention may be, you fail to grasp the full implication of the statement, and rather retort with an immediate response that you feel denies it without question.

Tell me this, since you are so sure... Does the universe make mistakes?

0 contains every possible equation. Nothing contains infinite potential.

Exactly :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

0 contains every possible equation. Nothing contains infinite potential.

---

What does this mean. Especially "Nothing contains infinite potential." I can't tell if you're really this stupid.

Passing off nonsense as profound wisdom is not an uncommon happening around these parts unfortunately.

Edgar D. Mitchell, ScD, PhD | IONS Directory | Institute of Noetic Sciences

Some scientist may not want to be spiritual, but they are starting to realize that science is going towards a more and more spiritual side, perhaps not elven and faires but the power of thought, the idea of consciousness and the perspective of reality. I mean NASA physicist Thomas Campbell believes in astral projection because of careful exploration and valid proof and the double slit experiment is suggesting that things are only existing for us when something put conscious awareness of it. I mean it might not be correct but still Science is getting more and more spiritual and perhaps in a few years there is no need to call it spiritual anymore but science!

The 2012 is harder to prove though, although there is still no explanation of how the ancient civilizaitions built the pyramids, had information about the universe that should take hundres or thousands of years to observe and calculate. And their knowledge of sacred geometry. So before we dissmis their theories we should consider their science because they might have been more advanced than us in some areas.
I mean we can calculate when a meteor will go pass the earth, but if they knew more about the universe and human nature, they should be able to calculate much bigger things.

We'll see what happens :) One thing to remember: Lucid dreaming was totally spiritual and considered impossible by Science before and now it's still probably considered as pseudo-science to some scientists, yet we are all here? Be skeptical but don't be completely closed for oppurtunities of the new.

Whitman's Mind: Dan Dennett on Spin & Deepity - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg-4fmbpZ-M

Quote:

---

Lucid dreaming was totally spiritual and considered impossible by Science before

---

When? Provide a source. When did any expert in the field declare it impossible? Note that "there is no valid evidence to believe this claim" is not the same as "impossible".

Quote:

---

now it's still probably considered as pseudo-science to some scientists

---

It's a legitimate field of science.

I find this especially dishonest when it was actually the legitimate scientific research on the matter that convinced me that lucid dreaming was not a crock of shit, like most of the stuff the nutjobs here believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

When? Provide a source. When did any expert in the field declare it impossible? Note that "there is no valid evidence to believe this claim" is not the same as "impossible".



It's a legitimate field of science.

I find this especially dishonest when it was actually the legitimate scientific research on the matter that convinced me that lucid dreaming was not a crock of shit, like most of the stuff the nutjobs here believe.

---

Wrong of me I mean that it was considered more or less paranormal until Stephen LaBerge made it a more hot topic. Other examples of paranormal topics: clairvoyance, telepathy, thoughts effects on the world. That's why I used the impossible term because people in general are not open for the possibility at all and they call it impossible. And my point wasn't if lucid dreaming was considered pseudo-science or not, but the fact that what's logic today isn't logic tomorrow. A little easier example then to really see my point.

It used to be logical to believe that the earth was flat. If you said anything else you were considered crazy and people thought you were stupid.

Today "some" people and scientists laugh at the thought of out of body experiences, it's just considered impossible for some although there are also people AND scientists who consider it possible and see the value in the possibility. I am trying to make you see that what's considered new age today, might be science tomorrow.

So paranormal things aren't just as you so adequately put it a "crock of sh*t" and you are not a "nutjob" if you believe in something just because it isn't proven yet.


This might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ha_9Omn9obk (Note: I am not the creator of this video ^-^ )

It used to be logical to believe that jumping from an extreme height with nothing to break your fall would likely kill you. If you said anything else you were considered crazy and people thought you were stupid.

Moral of the story: the fact that there's no evidence for your opinions does not somehow, by some bizarre logic, give them plausibility. It's really quite unbelievable to me that people time and time again are apparently unable (more likely unwilling) to grasp something so blatantly obvious.

Before the issue was investigated, there was really not much evidence either way as to whether the Earth's surface was flat, or gradually curved. Anybody making assertions either way was incorrect to do so, and was certainly not a scientist. Only when empirical evidence became available was it sensible to have a positive opinion about the issue.

In exactly the same way, if you have no positive evidence for, for example, out of body experiences, you have no reason to have a positive belief they are real. You should give the same level of credence as you give to, say, the idea that there is a teapot orbiting the sun. Sure, one day this may be proven true. That is absolutely no reason to believe that it will.

A catholic who has an interest in mathematics believes that they have the whole issue sewn up for us :ninja:

The measure of my individual perfection is p, and this is a function of t (the span of my life measured in minutes, days or years). We will denote the day of my birth as t=0 and the day of my death as T, and I will enter the next life at T+ε, where ε is an infinitesimally small positive value. At any value of t, I know that the measure of my perfection is finite, that is, Pt<∞. I also know that to enter eternal life, pT must be infinite. Considering that Pt+1 is also a function of pt, that is, the decisions I make today influence my level of perfection tomorrow, I realize that Pt must also be finite. My perfection is bounded from above by a finite function of t and thus can never meet the conditions to enter eternal life. The formula for this is:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...0/image004.gif

Now, consider the perfection of Jesus Christ, which will be denoted XP. At any given t, XP is infinite. Even so, XP can operate on my perfection functionally in a finite manner but generally increasing at an increasing rate. Thus, my individual perfection does not have to be bounded; rather, it can be bound to the infinite through a transformation. If my individual perfection is conditioned on Christ’s and is transformed, I know that my perfection can approach Christ’s asymptotically. This can be expressed in the following formula:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...0/untitled.jpg

(Note that, even when conditioning on XP, f(p) can, over some subsets of t, increase at a decreasing rate since Pt+1 < Pt for some t. This is known as the concupiscential tendency for the imbedded error distribution in Ptto degenerate.) The properties of the dependent perfection can also be understood via the graphical representation below.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...s400/chart.jpg

So, I am not perfect, but, given a transformation through Christ, I can be perfect.

^Ugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightofHeaven

^Ugh.

---

My same, exact sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterMind

Wrong of me I mean that it was considered more or less paranormal until Stephen LaBerge made it a more hot topic. Other examples of paranormal topics: clairvoyance, telepathy, thoughts effects on the world. That's why I used the impossible term because people in general are not open for the possibility at all and they call it impossible. And my point wasn't if lucid dreaming was considered pseudo-science or not, but the fact that what's logic today isn't logic tomorrow. A little easier example then to really see my point.

It used to be logical to believe that the earth was flat. If you said anything else you were considered crazy and people thought you were stupid.

Today "some" people and scientists laugh at the thought of out of body experiences, it's just considered impossible for some although there are also people AND scientists who consider it possible and see the value in the possibility. I am trying to make you see that what's considered new age today, might be science tomorrow.

So paranormal things aren't just as you so adequately put it a "crock of sh*t" and you are not a "nutjob" if you believe in something just because it isn't proven yet.


This might help: Spirit Science 11_1 - Evolution - YouTube (Note: I am not the creator of this video ^-^ )

---

The fact that lucid dreaming has had its existence empirically established does not lend credence to any of the other ideas floating around this site, or in the same arena. And if you seriously look at what some of the people say and believe in the beyond dreaming forum, yes, they are nutjobs. If some of them actually believe what they claim to believe, then they frankly need serious help.

With out of body experiences, people have performed serious and anecdotal tests to see if there is any truth to the matter, such as writing messages on the surfaces of operating rooms which the patient could not see directly even if they were conscious. They have all failed.

Frankly, I've never seen something have such a compelling explanation yet continue to remain a mystery. The sheer number of people who manage to induce an 'out-of-body' experience while attempting to have a lucid dream suggests significant overlap between the phenomena. There's no doubt in my mind that such events are simply dreams where the participant is placed in a realistic setting with control, but fails to realise they are in a dream and mistakes it for reality.


Also, many 'paranormal' events have perfectly rational explanations.

And don't put words in my mouth and blatantly twist them for your own purposes either. I didn't say anyone is a nutjob for believing in something that hasn't been proven yet. Paranormal claims will continue to remain a crock of shit (you can drop the asterisk by the way, we're not children who think that saying f**k is somehow less offensive than fuck) until they have evidence behind them. Just like all claims where the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, yet who provides no evidence for it.


What a lot of the people here see themselves: Intelligent open-minded people

What they actually are: Gullible morons who possess no skeptical thought, have no critical thinking skills, and who give their direct experiences significant weight on a site dedicated to showing you just how good a job your brain can do at fooling you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...0/untitled.jpg

---

lol... where on Earth did this come from?

lol, I have no idea what to say about the perfection formula... what are the g and upside down A? :P Jesus = xp, get enough points before you die, or live to be 100 and you WIN! :banana:

Photolysis: how do you prove that infinity does not equal 0? Truly, nothing that exists has infinite potential, but also, in nothingness, there is infinite potential. Consider what 0 represents, perfect, intangible nothingness. Mastermind mentioned the double slit experiment makes a pretty good case for the fact that time definitely a lot more wonky than our rational minds would have us believe... If you're not familiar with it, then a brief summary of its significance is that the past may be changed (wrap your head around that one). The point being that it just might be possible that time does not exist at all. Zero may represent the size of the current moment, the perfectly immeasurable now. This is the only part of time that we know exists for sure, the past is gone (and unstable apparently) and the future is indeterminable as far as we know. Besides, the perfection of zero is innately infinite, infinite nothingness. The reason why I chose this site to join and post this on is because I came across a discussion about dividing by zero. Some argued that it cannot be done, and that the result is undefined, like we learn in school (like I did anyways). But consider that we can fit infinite nothings (zeroes) into any number. Similarly, there are infinite current moments in the duration of anything. Indeed even a nanosecond may be divided indefinitely into smaller pieces. Consider a fractal, there is no end.
Forget the Mayan calendar bit, I only brought it up because 0 is the beginning of that which makes measurement possible, mathematically a reference point before something occurs, and that the number 0 has a certain spiritual quality (Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is smaller than a mustard seed. In its perfection, could it have any size at all? O_o). Somewhere along the lines something great was lost with the ancient civilizations, and I happen to trust that the Mayans didn't have their heads up their a**es when they made their cosmic calculations.
I came here for open minded, intelligent discussion, what better place to discuss this than among a community of dreamers? Remember, we can ask who, what, where, when and how, but WHY is the only question that truly matters...

[QUOTE=nietstein;1949211]So you haven't read the book... Are you so sure that you have completely considered the statement? However reprehensible and offensive to our sensibilities what you mention may be, you fail to grasp the full implication of the statement, and rather retort with an immediate response that you feel denies it without question.

Tell me this, since you are so sure... Does the universe make mistakes?[/
Like I said, if you think that everything that happens to us is the best possible experience, you have a lot to learn. Mainly about other people and their experiences within this world. No I haven't read the book, but it sounds like I'd be wasting my time. I've considered such statement from the time I was able to think for myself. To say that torture, degradation, humiliation, and pain are INTENDED parts of the human experience is offensive. It makes me think that you are one of the people in this world that believes human suffering to be an evolutionary necessity. No I don't believe the universe makes mistakes. Just take a look around man. Everything about the planet we live on, the species inhabiting it, and cosmic events that have unfolded point to a structural existence. I'm pretty sure I grasp the full implications of your statement, you think everyone is supposed to get what they get. You apparently believe that everything happens for a reason, however fucked up that reason may be.

I not sure why u defend the notion of necessary suffering, but you obviously put a lot of credence in a higher power, for how could you believe every terrible thing happens without a predetermined purpose? Randomness and willpower are the driving forces behind the universe, even though they seem to contradict each other. What a wonderful place to be.

"In this book, you may see statements that are contrary to what you believe, contrary to what your experience has taught you, contrary to what others have told you, contrary to the spiritual traditions you grew up with, and even contrary to your own common sense. That is to be expected. If it were not that way, you would have already achieved the art of happiness. Because some of what you will read may seem impossible or foolish, even ridiculous, it may at first offend your sensibilities, causing you to scoff at it, ridicule it, and reject it. Each time you come upon a statement that has that effect upon you, I suggest that before rejecting it, you ask yourself whether or not you would want the statement to be true-- and then give yourself the chance to see it as true" -Chris Prentiss, Zen and the art of happiness, 2009

No one said anything about evolutionary necessity except you. You wouldn't think I was such a terrible person if you knew me or the work that I do. Every day that I go to work, I never know what I will encounter. I might talk to someone who wants to kill themselves, someone who was raped, someone who's children were molested, someone who just wants something to eat, even someone who doesn't care if they eat as long as their children get to. And I have. Over and over again. I am aware of the nature and scope of suffering. My job can be pretty depressing, yet I am honored and privileged to be able to serve others as I do. The tone of your responses lead me to believe you've experienced some pretty terrible things in your life, and it is not my intention to offend you. Let me rephrase the statement that 'everything that happens to you is the best thing that can happen to you' in terms that may be more familiar to you. God has a plan for you, and everything that happens to you is part of it. You have a purpose.

If you believe that randomness and willpower are the essence of reality, then that will be your reality. It doesn't sound like you're very happy though. What would you say if I told you that 'Nothing has a separate self' and that 'Everything is impermanent'? And that, indeed, there is no self?

Photolysis I don't mean that one should believe in everything, although if people never believed in stuff that wasn't proven yet, well then it would never be any breakthroughs.

But you don't need to put up a fight I am very scientific, in fact sometimes I only believe in it because of the science behind it (Sometimes because of own experience, carefully analyzed but that is subjective) most of it is of course not FULLY proven yet, but there are science that makes it seem rational.

So there are proof out there, and many other people get the same result, examples: Thomas Campbell and Robert Monroe
But since you can't publish a report and say "They obtained information without knowing it before!" and proving that they didn't knew before.
It is's unfortunately only a proof for those who take part of the experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwu8qwXjdjs

http://noetic.org/

It happens to be so that science is making some spiritual things look possible and logical at the same time, but since all paranormal things that even though it is starting to get scientifically proven it still have the supersticious mark in it's name so well people wont accept it until it's accepted by the general scientific community and then generally by the public. Infinity is a good example, not proven with an photograph (I know how stupid that sounds xD But you get my point) but it is shown by matemathics and rational thinking and an accepted view by the majority of the people.

I mean why do you believe the earth is round? (Don't get me wrong I do too :P) But if your never up in space and actually see it, how then can you actually KNOW? Yeah through (possibly faked) videos and math and calculations well it's still technically remains a theory then.
Although an accepted one.
(Yeah I know you can look at the horizont blabla but there are still people who say that they with math have shown that it's flat o. O)
So ultimately it comes down to seeing it.

And I am trying to say that paranormal events have explanations, it's just that we don't understand how yet. We don't exactly know what the consciousness is, does that mean that it doesn't exist either then?

I was like you before and so was my friend. We said that people exaggerated things and it was all bullshit, but then my friend had an OBE himself and obtained information that was unknown to him before, and after that he was far from skeptical it's obvious of course since he had experienced it himself.
Is it then so stupid of me to believe my friend? For now I choose to believe but when I experience it myself I will know.

So if you Photolysis would experience an OBE, let's say a neardeath experience and got information that you knew you hadn't heard before like a family secret nobody ever talked about and you heard it from a dead relative in a "dream". He told you a secret and later on you confirm it with your alive mother.

Would you then say that one is giving direct experiences "too much" significant weight? (I added too much because it seemed like that was what you ment).

And is that claim then a paranormal claim that is EXACTLY as you said it - a crock of shit?

if NO - We are on the same page when it comes to what's personal proof for astral projection.

And the paranormal claim for the day - my friend had that situation in one of these experiences:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/interv...rt-2-a-136828/

Of course one can say that it is a false claim, well then I say remain open for the possibility because what if it isn't?

I am not trying to make you say "I totally believe you!! WOW COOL!" but I don't want you to say "Nah I don't believe you, what have you smoked bro?" but to make you say "Hmm I can't believe in it myself, but I am open for the possibility and it might be possible" then if you are interested you can do your own research and see if you can prove it to yourself. Because it is a very subjective experience, but because of that it doesn't mean that all of it is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...0/untitled.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

lol... where on Earth did this come from?

---

From a random blog in the nether regions of the Internet. I thought it would be a lighthearted addition to the thread. It may have been on perhaps page 78 of the google search that I did; God knows where it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Photolysis: how do you prove that infinity does not equal 0?

---

By proving that you can't construct an injective function from ℕ to ∅, which is extremely easy.

There is no plan. I don't see how you can possibly believe that, seeing the things you claim to see. Care to enlighten me? because this conversation is going nowhere.

Xei: Truly, I don't know. How would that work? I can't claim that zero definitely equals infinity, nor could anyone else at this point in time. Like Mastermind said, what is logical today, might not be tomorrow. It just seems that in some way, this must be true, though there is no proof for it at this time.

Planeswalker: How can you be so sure there is not a 'plan'? What if everything has already happened? Time cannot be linear in the sense that we perceive it, if it even really exists. What would you say to this: “Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.” -Baruch de Spinoza.

Have you not ever had the feeling that something that happened was a 'miracle'? Or that it was meant to be? We could easily reason away such a belief of these instances as irrational given the logical nature of our minds. It's much easier to leave it to a combination of randomness and individual action, this idea is comfortable for our egos. Tell me this, are you so sure you exist? Could you be a figment of your own imagination? What is the 'you' that you think you are? Is it your body? Is it your mind? Is it your spirit?

Think carefully about this. You can reject it as silly if you like, many would, and your unwillingness to consider it would mean simply that you cling to the confines of the 'reality' that you know. And that is just fine, I wouldn't wish it any other way, because it would be all that could have happened. :)

I cannot "enlighten" you. I can only do what it is that I am doing. Ultimately, you will either consider it or you won't. You must make the 'choice' of whether it is to be or not to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Xei: Truly, I don't know. How would that work? I can't claim that zero definitely equals infinity, nor could anyone else at this point in time.

---

Correct, because it can proven false extremely easily. It's about as easy as proving that no bachelors are married.

Quote:

---

Like Mastermind said, what is logical today, might not be tomorrow. It just seems that in some way, this must be true, though there is no proof for it at this time.

---

Except that's obviously bullshit and my response to him pointed out exactly why. And that was for matters of science and observation. What you're talking about now it's matters of mathematics and logic, which consists of indubitable statements which can never and have never been proven wrong.

Well, you would have to know with absolute certainty what the future holds for it to be "bullshit" as you so have so eloquently labeled it. The concepts of zero and infinity are not so logically clearly cut and rational as you would like to believe they are. It sounds to me as though you would have happily claimed the earth was flat because other people said so. If there were not people willing to open their minds beyond the conventional logic of their time, where would we be today? Perhaps with an earth that is 'indubitably' flat and the center of the universe because others were fearful of the notion that it could be any other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

I cannot "enlighten" you. I can only do what it is that I am doing. Ultimately, you will either consider it or you won't. You must make the 'choice' of whether it is to be or not to be.

---

If you cannot "enlighten" me then you aren't an agent of enlightenment. Watch yourself bro

But to back you up,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

how do you prove that infinity does not equal 0?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

By proving that you can't construct an injective function from ℕ to ∅, which is extremely easy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

I can't claim that zero definitely equals infinity, nor could anyone else at this point in time. Like Mastermind said, what is logical today, might not be tomorrow. It just seems that in some way, this must be true, though there is no proof for it at this time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Except that's obviously bullshit

---

Xei, if you retrace logical steps you've previously utilized it is obvious there is only one way for nietstein's claim to be true and that is if it is an axiom. You've mentioned before how

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

---

and even how the faculties by which we obtain truth (aka knowledge of axioms) are not a priori and completely wrong. So it seems instead that the bullshit is how you're actually in agreement with nietstein, in agreement over how infinity and 0 have potential to be one and the same thing.

But before I continue what do ℕ and ∅ represent? I only ever went up to Algebra III in an academic environment. Hng

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FHTRx0P2N4...s400/chart.jpg

---

Now I don't understand this math but it seems his perfection was at zero at the time of his birth. Does that mean abortion is okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Well, you would have to know with absolute certainty what the future holds for it to be "bullshit" as you so have so eloquently labeled it. The concepts of zero and infinity are not so logically clearly cut and rational as you would like to believe they are. It sounds to me as though you would have happily claimed the earth was flat because other people said so. If there were not people willing to open their minds beyond the conventional logic of their time, where would we be today? Perhaps with an earth that is 'indubitably' flat and the center of the universe because others were fearful of the notion that it could be any other way.

---

Do you even read other people's posts before you write this rubbish? That was rhetorical; obviously you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tempusername

Xei, if you retrace logical steps you've previously utilized it is obvious there is only one way for nietstein's claim to be true and that is if it is an axiom. You've mentioned before how

and even how the faculties by which we obtain truth (aka knowledge of axioms) are not a priori and completely wrong. So it seems instead that the bullshit is how you're actually in agreement with nietstein, in agreement over how infinity and 0 have potential to be one and the same thing.

But before I continue what do ℕ and ∅ represent? I only ever went up to Algebra III in an academic environment. Hng

---

Wow, I'm flattered you've being paying so much attention. But I don't really espouse the view that there is no such thing as truth. Truth comes in degrees of certainty, or ubiquity. Some truths come in degrees so high that it's insane not to believe them, and certainly insane to firmly believe otherwise. These truths are demonstrated via observations and inferences so pervasively ubiquitous that it makes no sense to dispute them.

At any rate, one thing I cannot permit is people using nonstandard language to make nonsense statements and pass them off as wisdom.

By definition, two sets have the same number of elements if you can construct a 'one-to-one' relationship from the elements of one to the elements of the other. For instance, if you have a set of five sheep, you can label the sheep one to five, and this defines a one-to-one mapping between the set of sheep and the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. Or the set {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}; you can construct a map from this to {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} which sends each number to half of itself (and sending stuff in the other direction doubles it). The number 5 is literally defined as those sets which can be put into a one-to-one mapping with {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. The number 0 is defined as those sets which can be put into a one-to-one mapping with {}, or '∅', the set of no elements, and the number 'infinity' is taken to mean those sets which can be put into a one-to-one mapping with {1, 2, 3, 4, ... }, or 'ℕ', the set of all positive whole numbers. The number of even numbers is thus infinity, for example, because again we can send 2 to its half, 1, 4 to 2, 6 to 3, and so on; this is a one-to-one map.

If you think about this for a bit, it's obvious that this formalism corresponds exactly to our common concepts of counting, 0, and infinity.

Is infinity equal to 0? Well, simply by the definition of the terms, this is equivalent to asking if we can send a one-to-one map from ℕ to ∅. Can we? No, obviously not. Because for a start we would need to map 1 (which is in ℕ) to something in ∅, yet there is nothing to map it to, because by definition ∅ is has no elements to be mapped to. Therefore infinity cannot be equal to 0.

It is anticipated that the OP will retort that this is not somehow what he meant. As the only thing that I have done is defined exactly what we commonly mean by the words he used, this will be an admission of the fact that his post was at best a failure of communication, at worst meaningless in the first place; in common parlance, 'bullshit'.

I've had one too many Tuborgs and this post may be overly long and rambling, sorry if that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Photolysis: how do you prove that infinity does not equal 0?

---

A) by the very definition of zero and infinity.
B) reductio ad absurdum. If they are equal you have to throw out huge swathes of mathematics and areas of science because you get absolutely nonsensical values and the terms become meaningless.

Running statements through such basic sanity checks is a very good way to avoid coming out with complete bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterMind

Photolysis I don't mean that one should believe in everything, although if people never believed in stuff that wasn't proven yet, well then it would never be any breakthroughs.

---

Nonsense. You don't have to believe in something before it is 'proven'. For rational people it's the very act of gathering sufficient evidence to prove it that leads to acceptance of it as fact. Follow where the evidence takes you, and if it's strong enough the belief comes naturally.

Quote:

---

but then my friend had an OBE himself and obtained information that was unknown to him before, and after that he was far from skeptical it's obvious of course since he had experienced it himself.
Is it then so stupid of me to believe my friend? For now I choose to believe but when I experience it myself I will know.

---

And how can anyone possibly confirm or disprove such anecdotes? How can anyone possibly determine if your friend had or did not have any exposure to the information, even if he wasn't consciously aware of the fact. How can I determine it's not confirmation bias.

And is it stupid to believe something like this simply based on an anecdotal account? Yes it is. You're considering something a fact based entirely on the word of someone else with no reliable data or control.

Quote:

---

So if you Photolysis would experience an OBE

---

The first thing I'd do is test if it was a dream or not. I'm confident that would be a spectacular success.

Quote:

---

got information that you knew you hadn't heard before like a family secret nobody ever talked about and you heard it from a dead relative in a "dream"

---

And how could I determine truly that I'd never heard it? That I hadn't gathered fragments of evidence to piece something together? That it wasn't a lucky guess?

So no, I wouldn't give it any weight. The most I could do is say "I cannot fully explain this".

The only way to prove anything is a controlled experiment. If these claims have any truth to them, they should easily pass these tests. Remote viewing, OBEs, astral project etc. have failed every single controlled test I can find. If they have passed one and I am unaware of it, please link the paper so I can read it for myself.

Has anyone read the article? http: //ww w.bpramana.or g/scientific-spirituality/math .htm Because no one has said anything about it... I never stated it as fact, the title starts with "what if", so if your just going to assume its wrong because of the base 10 math system, then there's no point in frustrating yourself like you seem to be. If you don't ever think outside the box, you'll stay trapped in it...

Here is both experiments done in labs and people's stories: http://reconnection.lima-city.de/OBE...ion/index.html

Photolysis based on what you just wrote I juste have to say that Robert Monroe reason in the same way. But as I said the problem is that the only one you can prove it to is yourself and the one you are doing the experiment with, so it is impossible to prove to someone outside the experiment that they didn't had the information before and even to yourself, but these controled experiments have been done in labs, and also by people generally. Of course their got to be people who lie so I don't take it as facts.

It seems like they haven't published a scientific article, since they saw that it was no use.

It sort of like the experiment where they tried to teach a monkey to use sign language, they actively used it to "communicate" with it outside the lab, but as soon as it was in a control lab he got nervous and couldn't do it. But they still had videos of the monkey using the sign language on video, although when it comes to OBE it just can't be videotaped :( Here is a trailer of that monkey buisness xD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHoviCO7lpE

Robert Monroe considered his OBEs as dreams for about a year, until he got experiences of seeing his friends, he knew his friend was ill so he went to visit him and expected him to be in bed so he went to his bedroom and looked for him (creepy much xD?), then he saw that he wasn't there so he went out in the yard and saw that he was out walking and had a robe on him, a red one.
Then he saw the mans wife with a coat getting there and he couldn't hear what they said, but she looked worried.

The next morning he talked with them and he had noted time and the experience, and it matched exactly what had happened at that time.

This can of course be viewed as a coincidence, but there are more experiences like this that he experienced through out his life.

And he is a very pragmatic man, when he first experienced a lucid dream or OBE the first thing he did was to get to a frined who is a doctor to get checked out because he thought he was getting crazy. Robert Monroe explains his first OOBE. - YouTube - here is an interview.

But as I said there is no way of us to know that this happened than to experience it ourselves. We can't know that a person have had a lucid dream just based on their story because they can lie, but since it's accepted we can do it even though we actually can't know for sure. Sure we can look at the brainwaves but you can do that on an OBE as well.

So if I am out of body and see an angel saying that I am going to save the world I am of course not going to believe it, because by then I would view it as mindcreated, but if I see and even hear my friend talking about something and then can confirm it with my friend the next morning AND tell the exact time of when it was said and explain it in detail, well then I would say it's rational to believe that something more than "just a dream" was going on. Not to mention that you can actually pick up a book and read it in an OBE in contrast to a dream. It is said anyway. It can still not be regarded as truth until you see it for yourself.

But you are right it might be stupid to believe in this, since I haven't even experienced it myself, I jsut trust my friend that was a skeptic but after an experience suddenly believed it, although he was a big skeptic and so was I. So for me this is like a religion, based on a story. But I choose to believe it, because if it is true it has very valuable consequences and is very useful. But I never said I knew, I only said that I believed.

The difference between this and a religion is that you can experience and prove it to yourself while you are alive, I mean in contrast to knowing that heaven and hell exist or something.

But don't worry Photolysis, I am actively doing attempts myself. So if or when I succeed, I can try to get to your place, tell something about your house that I just not couldn't had known before and I hope that you would agree with that I didn't knew it by then X . X

In other words I want to prove this "crock of shit" to skeptics :) Because by then I hope it's rational to believe it even though it's not scientifically accepted?

Monroe have exact steps of how to attain this state and based on those, I have a lot to work on... If you watch this video I am on Condition B now, but it takes time to relax yourself to the point where you feel the vibraton, I have managed to do it a few minutes after I went to bed, but I need to have a clear mind and relaxed body so for now I practice meditation to handle that.

Robert Monroe OBE Technique - YouTube

And even if I manage to get out of body, I need to practice moving around and get familiar, this is a lucid dreaming forum so I guess you understand how strange it feels in a different environment, when you first lucid dream for example.

My friends didn't believed in lucid dreams, then they had one themselves, I might no be able to make you have an OBE, but I can try to do what I can to prove it to you, proving a skeptic would probably make it a less crazy belief.

So peace and love Photolysis :sunflower: Let's say that I am a crock of shit for now ^-^. But I hope to prove you wrong ;)

Sweet dreams. You won!.. For now :( MasterMind out :poof:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Has anyone read the article? http: //ww w.bpramana.or g/scientific-spirituality/math .htm Because no one has said anything about it... I never stated it as fact, the title starts with "what if", so if your just going to assume its wrong because of the base 10 math system, then there's no point in frustrating yourself like you seem to be. If you don't ever think outside the box, you'll stay trapped in it...

---

Yet again you haven't actually read anybody else's posts other than your own. How wise.

What if butter/mayonnaise is necessarily the same thing as hippos/elephants?

Respectively?

That's ridiculous, I read everything that everyone wrote. What exactly is it that you think I missed? Is your claim that I didn't read everything an excuse for you to have not read the article? Because that would make you... "bullshit". You can say anything you want, if you didn't read the article, and therefore don't have anything to say about it, then you sir, are simply being a douchebag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Because no one has said anything about it... I never stated it as fact, the title starts with "what if", so if your just going to assume its wrong because of the base 10 math system, then there's no point in frustrating yourself like you seem to be. If you don't ever think outside the box, you'll stay trapped in it...

---

This post clearly demonstrated that you are not reading what anybody else is saying, because people have addressed this misconception several times, and yet instead of rebutting, or modifying your views, you simply repeat the claims over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

But I don't really espouse the view that there is no such thing as truth. Truth comes in degrees of certainty, or ubiquity. Some truths come in degrees so high that it's insane not to believe them, and certainly insane to firmly believe otherwise. These truths are demonstrated via observations and inferences so pervasively ubiquitous that it makes no sense to dispute them.

---

I find it inconceivable that truths come in degrees of certainty. The relativity of so many things within the universe surely constitutes the ubiquity of particular truths, especially when it comes to Earthly or human things. Though I can't correlate relativity to degrees of certainty. Certainty is more so a property of human understanding than truth, no? People can have different levels of clarity/certainty/understanding about a truth but that doesn't effect the tangibility of the truth.

Quote:

---

this post may be overly long and rambling, sorry if that's the case.

---

It isn't. And now that I've relearned this bit about functions thanks to you I might actually be able to back up nietstein's claim. Though I am sort of hesitant to defend it after seeing you retort basically as Xei expected, nietstein ;\

But hey

All I can think about is Russel's Paradox. In defining ∅ as a set with no elements do we not instantaneously ascribe that the set cannot be an element--that it cannot be a member of itself? By distinguishing ∅ at all, do we not create a Russel set? ∅ cannot be a member of itself because it has no elements, yet in satisfying that definition of itself, it inevitably and contradictorily becomes a member of itself, an element, a 1.

So

Quote:

---

Is infinity equal to 0? Well, simply by the definition of the terms, this is equivalent to asking if we can send a one-to-one map from ℕ to ∅. Can we? No, obviously not. Because for a start we would need to map 1 (which is in ℕ) to something in ∅, yet there is nothing to map it to, because by definition ∅ is has no elements to be mapped to. Therefore infinity cannot be equal to 0.

---

??

can't create an injective function
definitions of zero and infinity (both are sketchy, the concept of infinity has changed before, and may change again)
reductio ad absurdum: it produces an absurdity in context of our current number system

I've been keeping count, it would be absolutely absurd for me to post this and not read what people have said about it. You assume that I haven't read because I'm not ultimately convinced that our system of math and reasoning is perfect.

So pretty much: several times is 3 reasons in 2 posts? Briliant... And I can guess that you've all but refused to read the article since you're clearly not going to say anything about it? Why do you refuse to read it? Because it must fundamentally disagree with the only number system you know? It's much easier to assume I'm crazy and irrational, because that's what the Greeks would have done, right?

Do you find it reasonable to assume that 1=.9~, which our number system must assume? Are they truly perfectly equal? Because they would have to be for our number system to have perfect, infallible reasoning. It depends on a linear definition of time, saying that each 'now' has at least some quintessentially small duration.

The length of each 'now' is 0, it defies measurement. So if I live to be 87 years old, how many 'nows' have I experienced? Is the result any different if I live to be 92? Oh, but, wait, THATS right, you can't divide by zero... is that rational? What about the ball that leaves my hand and is thrown into the air, arching and landing on the ground? What is the total number of positions it occupied? Sure, it would be nice to place a number on them, but ultimately you cant. Our number system can't represent the perfection that is reality. It clings to a steady, linear model of time and space, something that science is increasingly showing us is not the case.

No doubt you will present more reasons why our number system disproves these ideas, or somehow erringly compensates for them; and get upset because you have convinced yourself that I am stupid. Additionally, you won't have anything to say about the article because you'll probably refuse to read it and tell yourself it's automatically wrong. So much for open minded discussion...

Seems like you're convinced you know the answers. It has to be wrong because it doesn't fit with what you know. You must know more than this guy...

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." -Socrates

Riddle me this:

.9~=1
1/3=.3~
2/3=.6~
3/3= ... .9~ or 1? Which is it? Can there be .9~ spoons? There must be one spoon according to our system, how could there be .9~ spoons?. Does the spoon exist or not?

There is no spoon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tempusername

I find it inconceivable that truths come in degrees of certainty. The relativity of so many things within the universe surely constitutes the ubiquity of particular truths, especially when it comes to Earthly or human things. Though I can't correlate relativity to degrees of certainty. Certainty is more so a property of human understanding than truth, no? People can have different levels of clarity/certainty/understanding about a truth but that doesn't effect the tangibility of the truth.

---

This really comes down to semantics; I didn't really define what I meant by truth properly. I was pretty drunk so I wasn't bothered. Basically what I'm saying is that any assertions with meaning are basically of the form, 'this is a pattern in experience'. For instance, stuff falls down to Earth with nothing supporting it. This truth is extremely ubiquitous, which in my terminology is equivalent to saying that it is virtually always observed. We don't really 'know' it as some kind of general principle, universal and detached from reality, though. It could fail to work between 12.00am and 12.05pm tonight; we can raise no logical objection. And there are many instances in the past where something was assumed to be universal but just turned out to be extremely common in the limited domain that was previously observed; there were rare or hidden counter examples.

Quote:

---

It isn't. And now that I've relearned this bit about functions thanks to you I might actually be able to back up nietstein's claim. Though I am sort of hesitant to defend it after seeing you retort basically as Xei expected, nietstein ;\

But hey

All I can think about is Russel's Paradox. In defining ∅ as a set with no elements do we not instantaneously ascribe that the set cannot be an element--that it cannot be a member of itself? By distinguishing ∅ at all, do we not create a Russel set? ∅ cannot be a member of itself because it has no elements, yet in satisfying that definition of itself, it inevitably and contradictorily becomes a member of itself, an element, a 1.

So

??

---

No, for Russel's paradox to work, you need to be considering the SET OF SETS which are not elements of themselves. There's nothing wrong with just a set on its own that is not an element of itself. In fact the definition of number I provided comes directly from Russell himself (c.f. An Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy). And Russell banished such paradoxes from his foundation by ruling out putting sets inside sets (this basically banishes self-reference), so in fact all sets are trivially not members of themselves ({}, N, whatever), precisely because they are sets, and thus by definition can't be found inside themselves, as 'themselves' are not allowed to contain any sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

can't create an injective function
definitions of zero and infinity (both are sketchy, the concept of infinity has changed before, and may change again)

---

Yet again you've failed to pick up on the basic message people have been giving you from the start. WORDS AREN'T REAL, SINGULAR THINGS. This should be extremely easy to understand. You're talking about infinity: this means you PICK a definition for infinity, you PROVIDE it, and you STICK TO IT. The statement, 'the concept of infinity could change', is absolutely absurd and fatuous. Words are tools by which we communicate concepts. You are the one who chooses the concept you want to discuss, and denote it by some word. If somebody comes along tomorrow and decides that they're going to use the word 'infinity' to refer to 'dog', it has zero bearing on this conversation whatsoever. Why on Earth do you think it does? They will be having a conversation about dogs. Your conversation will still be about whatever it was that you defined. Do you think words are some kind of divinely ordained incorporeal objects, floating around the universe and capriciously changing their singular and ultimately authoritative meaning? That's incredibly sloppy thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

Riddle me this:

.9~=1
1/3=.3~
2/3=.6~
3/3= ... .9~ or 1? Which is it? Can there be .9~ spoons? There must be one spoon according to our system, how could there be .9~ spoons?. Does the spoon exist or not?

There is no spoon...

---

They're just different expressions for the same number. Just like you can simultaneously have 0.5 + 0.5 spoons and 1 spoon.

Yet again you show your extreme confusion about how definitions, words, and meaning works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

No, for Russel's paradox to work, you need to be considering the SET OF SETS which are not elements of themselves. There's nothing wrong with just a set on its own that is not an element of itself. In fact the definition of number I provided comes directly from Russell himself (c.f. An Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy). And Russell banished such paradoxes from his foundation by ruling out putting sets inside sets (this basically banishes self-reference), so in fact all sets are trivially not members of themselves ({}, N, whatever), precisely because they are sets, and thus by definition can't be found inside themselves, as 'themselves' are not allowed to contain any sets.

---

Okay well that clears a lot of shit up then. So if

• the "law of sets" or whatever banishes sets from basically being meta
• sets contain elements
• sets are defined by the unique properties of their elements

why the fuck is 0 even considered a set? Is it not a rule that all sets should be mappable? Isn't it inevitable the rule exists considering the essence of an element as well as how the concepts "set" and "element" are inseparable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The number 0 is defined as those sets which can be put into a one-to-one mapping with {}, or '∅', the set of no elements

---

This definition seems pretty meaningless and if anything is a contradiction.

As a disclaimer, I'm only asking you why because I assume my question is probably elementary and that you are way more fluent in math than I

So how is it that we can refer to them as the same thing? You reason that 0 cannot equal infinity because we cannot create an injective function from ∅ to ℕ. We could say 1=1, 2=2, 3=3 etc. or 0.5=1, 1=2, 1.5=3 etc. or .00001=1, .00002=2, .00003=3, etc. and we could keep going further and further down, but we could only ever come increasingly close to ∅ as we make new functions, because it is assumed that there can never be nothing. By the same token of reasoning, .9~ can infinitely approach 1, but it cannot be defined as the same thing. For it to work, we would have to put a limit on infinity. 0.0~1=1 (consider it the smallest 'conceivable' value without equaling ∅) to .9~=infinity, it could never equal 1, so 0.9~ =/= 1, because if there cannot ever be nothing, then there cannot ever be infinity.

And similarly, I have no doubt that you are more skilled mathematically than I am, so truly there's no need for hostility.

I didn't read everything but I would think the main difference between science/mathematics and spirituality/religion is that I'm able to create something physical out of science/mathematics. I can feel it, I can see it, I can use it without knowing anything complicated. Whereas spirituality/religion is ideas, ideas and more ideas. You get nothing physical out of it and it can change with a thought. That's why more people prefer to trust science/mathematics.

I think I didn't answer your post, I merely answered your title. A typical example of tl;dr. :|

The point is that religion and science may be seeking the same thing. There would be no spirituality or religion if they didn't have at least some bearing on the physical world. Religion is the finger, and spirituality is the moon, if you are familiar with this concept in Zen. If you read nothing else, then do as the others have not, and read the article which beautifully articulates that which I am trying to convey.

htt p: // www .bpra mana .org /scientific- spirituality /math. htm (spaces because I can't post links)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

The point is that religion and science may be seeking the same thing. There would be no spirituality or religion if they didn't have at least some bearing on the physical world. Religion is the finger, and spirituality is the moon, if you are familiar with this concept in Zen. If you read nothing else, then do as the others have not, and read the article which beautifully articulates that which I am trying to convey.

htt p: // www .bpra mana .org /scientific- spirituality /math. htm (spaces because I can't post links)

---

I'll help you with the link, Scientific Spirituality - Mathematical explanation

I'm not exactly a maths and science person so I can assure you, I got lost after the introduction. I see the article is breaking down mathematics to compare it with religion and spirituality. No matter whether maths/science are seeking the same thing as religion/spirituality, they're still largely different. At least it is to most people. Like I had mentioned, you don't need to know anything about maths or science to experience its effects and products. However you need to read and understand religion and spirituality concepts before you're able to experience it. All 4 of these, mathematics, science, religion and spirituality are languages or terms people have created to understand about this world. Since they are products of humans, I wouldn't be surprise if they are seeking the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tempusername

Okay well that clears a lot of shit up then. So if

• the "law of sets" or whatever banishes sets from basically being meta
• sets contain elements
• sets are defined by the unique properties of their elements

why the fuck is 0 even considered a set? Is it not a rule that all sets should be mappable? Isn't it inevitable the rule exists considering the essence of an element as well as how the concepts "set" and "element" are inseparable?

---

It just comes down to definitions as far as I can tell. I don't know of any 'rule' that says a set should be mappable (in fact maps are formally defined in terms of sets alone, so that would be circular if true), but in any case, you can actually create valid maps using the empty set. The definition of a map is that it sends each element in the set to some (single) element in some other set. A map which sends the empty set to some other set does therefore meet the demands of the definition, although vacuously so; there are no elements in the set, so trivially the map sends 'all of the elements' in the set to some element elsewhere.

Quote:

---

This definition seems pretty meaningless and if anything is a contradiction.

---

I don't see how it's either. You can use it to make distinctions; therefore it isn't meaningless. You can't map {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} to the empty set, so 5 is not 0. You can map the set of all real roots of x^2 + 1 to the empty set, so there are 0 real roots of x^2 + 1.

This is all just niggly formalism really. If you wanted you could arbitrarily ban the empty function, it wouldn't make any important difference. Stuff only becomes worth talking about when we have non-empty and/or infinite sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

So how is it that we can refer to them as the same thing? You reason that 0 cannot equal infinity because we cannot create an injective function from ∅ to ℕ. We could say 1=1, 2=2, 3=3 etc. or 0.5=1, 1=2, 1.5=3 etc. or .00001=1, .00002=2, .00003=3, etc. and we could keep going further and further down, but we could only ever come increasingly close to ∅ as we make new functions, because it is assumed that there can never be nothing. By the same token of reasoning, .9~ can infinitely approach 1, but it cannot be defined as the same thing. For it to work, we would have to put a limit on infinity. 0.0~1=1 (consider it the smallest 'conceivable' value without equaling ∅) to .9~=infinity, it could never equal 1, so 0.9~ =/= 1, because if there cannot ever be nothing, then there cannot ever be infinity.

---

Counting is about the sizes of sets. We are not interested in what is actually inside the sets; we are trying to abstract the 'number' of elements from the set without considering anything out about it, in the same way that the number three is abstracted from three sheep and three trees and three rocks. Creating a one-to-one map between the respective elements of {1, 2, 3} and {5, 9, 11} does not show that 5 = 1 or anything, it just shows that the latter set has three elements; creating a one-to-one map from {0.5} to {1} does not show that 0.5 = 1 as you seem to suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nietstein

And similarly, I have no doubt that you are more skilled mathematically than I am, so truly there's no need for hostility.

---

Nowhere have I been hostile with you or anybody else for not knowing things about mathematics. Everybody has different areas of knowledge, no doubt you know thousands of things I don't in other areas. The only thing I'm hostile to is doublethink; intentionally deluding oneself in various ways, one of which is balking at contemplation of counterarguments. This is what it looks like you're doing, because you keep repeating misconceptions, and misconstruing other people's positions, when they've explained otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The number 0 is defined as those sets which can be put into a one-to-one mapping with {}, or '∅', the set of no elements

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tempusername

This definition seems pretty meaningless and if anything is a contradiction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see how it's either. You can use it to make distinctions; therefore it isn't meaningless.

---

Quote:

---

Distinctions denote meaning

---

Quote:

---

Distinctions denote meaning

---

Quote:

---

Distinctions denote meaning

---

OP CONFIRMED NIHILISM FETISHIST

DO YOU HEAR THAT, OP? YOU AND YOUR FRANK N. WILEY ARE FETISHISTS OF NIHILISM. YOU HAVE A BONER FOR MEANINGLESSNESS


But wait...

Quote:

---

Stuff only becomes worth talking about when we have non-empty and/or infinite sets.

---

SO, OP, NOT ONLY IS YOUR WISH TO UNITE NOTHING WITH EVERYTHING A REFLECTION OF YOUR OBSESSION WITH MEANINGLESSNESS, THE CONCEPTS YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE (NOTHING AND INFINITY) ARE ALSO TOTALLY WORTHLESS! SUCKS TO SUCK


But hey, we just went full circle thanks to Xei calling an empty set worthless, so I guess OP wins in the end. Lel (full circle, get it?)

Or are you implying worthiness doesn't correlate to meaning, Zei?


And one more question, just to clarify some math:

Quote:

---

A map which sends the empty set to some other set does therefore meet the demands of the definition, although vacuously so; there are no elements in the set, so trivially the map sends 'all of the elements' in the set to some element elsewhere.

---

Are you telling me that anything, even the concept of zero, even "nothing," mathematically falls into a set?!

Quote:

---

Counting is about the sizes of sets.

---

Size... d-do sets even truly have the property of size? Any property of a set is defined by the elements which it holds... So:

Counting is about the sizes of sets.

Sizing sets is about maps.

Mapping is about distinguishing elements.

Numbers distinguish.

And the only thing to do with numbers is count them... f-f-full circle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

[When counting] we are not interested in what is actually inside the sets; we are trying to abstract the 'number' of elements from the set without considering anything out about it, in the same way that the number three is abstracted from three sheep and three trees and three rocks.

---

What is it called mathematically when we're not considering the number of elements but trying to distinguish them from one another based on their properties like color or shape, real or fake?

Isn't this method of "abstraction" reproduced outside of counting? Or is everything counting? We have sets and elements which aren't the verb counting obviously. They are nouns but we can't distinguish a set from another set or one element from another element (make a noun essentially) without counting. Same goes for distinguishing elements from sets, right? But what about things like fucking brackets {}, equal signs and all those non-numerical symbols mathematical equations require?

C = { red, green, blue }

How would we show the above equation using math alone without falling into an infinite mapping sequence to distinguish each element as a standalone ... uh number instead of a word?

And isn't it impossible for an element to standalone in the sense that other elements distinguish its ... uh ... distinctness?

FUCK I SUCK AT MATH

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/829/hyperbola.gif

I miraculously came in contact with another human since I last posted and managed to bring up these topics of nothing and everything. She reminded me what an asymptote was when I explained how another person was trying to claim +∞ = 0. This led me to discuss negative numbers. That's when we realized what distinguishes −∞ from +∞ is 0.

Girl: So 0 is finite
Me: Then the concept of nothing exists relatively

It seems too easy so I'll just wait for a mathematical smack down.

I'm sorry this question might be really stupid. Even though I am Asian (raised in Sweden) I have no brain for matemathics at all xD I just wonder if infinity equals zero/ 0, how do you then explain the following example.

Adam have infinite apples, does that then mean that he have zero apples, which then means that he have no apples at all o. O?

I once again apologize if that's a really stupid question ^-^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterMind

Even though I am Asian (raised in Sweden) I have no brain for matemathics at all xD

---

Why??? I'm an Asian too. :(

---

I would like to state something, the word "Zero" and "Infinite" most probably possess different meaning in religion/spirituality than mathematics. That's why the argument between both sides never came to an agreement. Zero means something more than just nothing in religion/spirituality if I didn't remember wrongly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

Why??? I'm an Asian too. :(

---

I would like to state something, the word "Zero" and "Infinite" most probably possess different meaning in religion/spirituality than mathematics. That's why the argument between both sides never came to an agreement. Zero means something more than just nothing in religion/spirituality if I didn't remember wrongly.

---

Hehe sorrry it's just a bad joke. The claim that all Asians know math: Family Guy - Cmon , Do Math - YouTube ^-^

And about zero and spirituality, I have never heard that zero means anything else than nothing and I am into many things that are considered spiritual :P So if you can find an example for that, it would be good. :)

1/0 = infinity then 0 x infinity should be 1 but at the same time if infinity is 0 then 0 x 0 is 1. I know that you can't divide with zero but if someone says that zero is infinity I need a simple explanation.

But I think I'll leave this thread I have no valid reason to believe zero isn't infinity, it's just an opinion because I can't understand the two concepts.
I mean things in nature never fully cease to exist, they are just not as clear as a solid thing, like the air you see now can be percieved as nothingness, but when you realize that air is something you just can't see but that it exist you realize that it is something, obviously.
But when matter and anti-matter touches it cease to exist o. O And I can't really make up my mind about what that really means.

So I'll leave this and let the math people talk, I am more of an empirical person, and as you can see in my other posts I can believe in very crazy things, if I have a valid empirical reason for it, that reasoning is of course subjective so feel free to call me crazy.. ^^

Anyway I hope you find your answers with the math, someday it will explain everything, I hope ;)

And one last advice. Never divide by zero!

http://reikna.skjabjort.is/wp-conten...e-by-zero1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterMind

Hehe sorrry it's just a bad joke. The claim that all Asians know math: Family Guy - Cmon , Do Math - YouTube ^-^

And about zero and spirituality, I have never heard that zero means anything else than nothing and I am into many things that are considered spiritual :P So if you can find an example for that, it would be good. :)

1/0 = infinity then 0 x infinity should be 1 but at the same time if infinity is 0 then 0 x 0 is 1. I know that you can't divide with zero but if someone says that zero is infinity I need a simple explanation.

---

I'm very sorry but I'm not very well read. I recalled borrowing a book about numbers from my teacher and it was explaining what each number meant spiritually. I found an article online, I'm not sure how much it will help in explaining. But it seems like zero is infinity because it resembles a circle and that links to infinity. Nothing to do about its value.

Symbolic Meanings Blog by Avia Venefica » Blog Archive » Spiritual Meaning of Number Zero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

I'm very sorry but I'm not very well read. I recalled borrowing a book about numbers from my teacher and it was explaining what each number meant spiritually. I found an article online, I'm not sure how much it will help in explaining. But it seems like zero is infinity because it resembles a circle and that links to infinity. Nothing to do about its value.

Symbolic Meanings Blog by Avia Venefica » Blog Archive » Spiritual Meaning of Number Zero

---

Funny conclusion though ^-^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carrot

. But it seems like zero is infinity because it resembles a circle and that links to infinity. Nothing to do about its value.

Symbolic Meanings Blog by Avia Venefica » Blog Archive » Spiritual Meaning of Number Zero

---

You are right the conflation of zero and infinity satisfies aesthetic values rather than mathematical ones. It has about as much utility as Pythagoras believing that the number 1 symbolized the god Apollo, in other words no utility at all. I read the Op but I am having some difficulty understanding this thread. I dont believe I understand what "spirituality" is meant to convey nor its relation to mathematics. I'm not really trying to bash on the thread but I have never had a mind for mysticism so perhaps someone could help me out.

To reply to what a few have said; there are several different meanings for infinity. The one I have been talking about so far is the most common colloquial meaning, which is the size of the set of counting numbers, {1, 2, 3, ... }. Another meaning of infinity is that found in analysis, where it is used as shorthand for statements like, '1/x tends to infinity as x tends to 0 from above', but this isn't actually about any entity 'infinity', as x never actually reaches 0, it's just a statement about the way that 1/x is behaving for non-zero values of x. The last use that I can think of for infinity in maths is a formal use, where for instance you might want to say that actual division of 1 by 0 is okay, so you just add some new point to the set, which you call 'infinity' for colloquial reasons, and then add some rules for how it behaves. This last usage is just formalism, you could just as well label the new point 'Garry' rather than 'infinity'; wouldn't make any difference.

The point is that for all three of these different meanings, they each have very precise definitions, and the definitions are about simple and non-contradictory things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tempusername

Are you telling me that anything, even the concept of zero, even "nothing," mathematically falls into a set?!

---

You can take different approaches, and it's kind of too philosophical and/or meaningless for most mathematicians to worry about, but if you're aiming to put mathematics on a highly formal, minimal basis, that basis tends to be sets, yes. I'm not sure there is anything in mathematics that couldn't in principle be reduced to some statement of set theory. Some of the ways it is done are quite cool... for instance, in modern mathematics, the real, continuous number line is formulated in terms of sets (using things called Dedekind cuts, which are basically just a splitting into two sets of the fractions, and fractions in turn are basically just a set of pairs of natural numbers, with some rules).

Quote:

---

Size... d-do sets even truly have the property of size? Any property of a set is defined by the elements which it holds... So:

Counting is about the sizes of sets.

Sizing sets is about maps.

Mapping is about distinguishing elements.

Numbers distinguish.

And the only thing to do with numbers is count them... f-f-full circle...

---

It doesn't really come full circle. It goes sets -> mappings -> number. You distinguish mappings without reference to number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

You are right the conflation of zero and infinity satisfies aesthetic values rather than mathematical ones. It has about as much utility as Pythagoras believing that the number 1 symbolized the god Apollo, in other words no utility at all. I read the Op but I am having some difficulty understanding this thread. I dont believe I understand what "spirituality" is meant to convey nor its relation to mathematics. I'm not really trying to bash on the thread but I have never had a mind for mysticism so perhaps someone could help me out.

---

I believe in some stuff that is considered spiritual like Out of body experiences, and what I tried to say was that what's the math of this time doesn't have to prove the experiences people have.
Of course there are alot of other things that is considered spiritual that I don't beleive in, like the Yeti or Snowman, but if I had actually met him I would believe and know, that's obvious.
But I believe that math someday will be able to explain the OBEs and in fact it already is theories of how it could be possible, perspectives and questions Einstein and lots Nobel Price winners present and that Thomas Campbell is trying to solve by taking the consciousness into account.

I know this is equivalent to some people with to say that he is trying to solve Einstein problems by taking a unicorn to account. But listen to the guy before you judge... If that unicorn truly is the solution, you are really missing out on something.


Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 - YouTube

And science is going in a more and more spiritual direction: Just look at the qutoes from some familiar nobel price winners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giWvh...feature=relmfu

And Campbell explains a good way to consider something reaonable plausible. Around 06:40:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtfJ2...feature=relmfu

The math and logic before was that if someone sailed out to sea they would end up falling of the earth in the end. The math and logic of that time wasn't enough to explain something else.

And this is what I am trying to say is the same problem about OBEs. However there was probably people back then that believed that the earth was round and later on someone else proved it.

Empirical knowledge has more value than non-empirical in logic. That's what I have learned in philosophy class anyway.
And with empirical knowledge to prove OBE, I mean that it is highly reasonable to believe that you didn't had information before but you attain it from an OBE.
Like visiting a house you never been in and then confirming it with the person who live in the house, the next day. That's valid empirical knowledge to me.

It was a little off-topic of me to talk about this and that might have caused the confusion, but is now when I think about unclear to me as well
o. O

I always think that I will write a short post, ah well... What I am trying to say is that I believe math and science can explain everything, but that doesn't mean that we can't experience stuff that math or science hasn't explained yet. But I believe that we can find explanations if we stop marking everything supersticious.

So we need to unite science with spirituality and maybe we can make valuable discoveries.

Like this science center have done: http://noetic.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It doesn't really come full circle. It goes sets -> mappings -> number. You distinguish mappings without reference to number.

---

I've probably got something elaborate to say but for the time being it seems like that thread over there sums up this threadhere.

Sorry for bringing up a 4-5 month thread, but I see no point in me making another thread with my belief on this.

(I skimmed through the content of this page and saw it just went to wild tangents here).

Anyway, to question if Science/Mathematics is "necessarily" the same thing as Spirituality/Religion fundamentally is completely out of the question.

-Religion/Spirituality is merely people placing faith on something to be true, even going to lengths of wanting it to be true by conjecture, and making false and illogical associations that have no substantial evidence that could be analyzed, peer-reviewed, and repeated in filters science has made before a claim is considered practical and true. Religion also has the tendency to be fixed (while science is continually updating because it's more progressive), people use religion/morality find "origin" in morality, and other psychological predispositions that make them feel at comfort. It's like being a defeatist and giving up the endeavor of attempting to find ways why things are what they are.

Basically, when people use religion to the point where it defines the origin of something, that it's the only true way, or the "practical" way to live life, that's when it gets concerning and obviously DIFFERENT from what Science is served for.

Because if you try to use belief systems to explain the unknown, it means:

-Believing in Thor to explain something, that it was the work of Thor
-Believing in the Russel's Teapot being a justification of the unknown not being able to be understood.
-Believing in the JuJu monster in the sea being a justification
-Believing in fairies, warlocks, succubi, as a justification of truth.

All of those are just as equal or on par with each other when trying to make "plausible" explanations out of faith.

The list can go on and on and on.

But if an individual can know their faith and religion/spirituality is more on a personal basis and don't try to mix it in with science, then they're just fine.


-Science/Mathematics (mostly just Science really) on the other hand, is completely different. Unlike religion/spirituality, Science takes the approach through a reasonable manner. Through peer-review, rational analyzing without trying to skew in pure faith, going through as much repetition in a practical way, even though Science may not answer the bigger mysteries of life and the Universe, it's at least NOT going into a defeatist mindset that many people get into when they can't explain or understand something and put "Religion" as an explanation.


Even if Science shifts to the "spiritual" side of things, it doesn't mean it's going to be similar to religion/spirituality. Science is going to change constantly when evidence comes to show that some mechanics of science may become outdated; but it doesn't mean it's being spiritualistic.

Even if Science may not be a way to solve everything (origins of nature, universe, etc.), it's completely illogical, and again, a defeatist's way of presuming Religion can. Because with religion, there's thousands and thousands of beliefs systems, and if it gets to the point where there's millions and millions of other belief systems, that's where Religion is obviously impractical to explain something.

Science on the other hand, clearly is not trying to be caught in the delusions of manifested belief systems of a god or many gods or whatever belief system that is based on pure faith with no coherent stringing of rationalization.


Basic endeavor of how people associate Religion/Spirituality: "If something cannot be explained YET reasonably, it's either the work of a creator, someone supernatural, etc. (or it's just magic)"

THOR DID IT!!! ZEUS DID THIS!! THE FLYING TEAPOT HAS THE ORIGINS OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. <--- = :facepalm:



Basic endeavor of Science: "We're getting there... but if something cannot be explained YET or in the future reasonably, it doesn't mean placing Religion/Spirituality as the explanation for our inability to understand the unknown is 'better.' But we're not assuming we can disprove something or say it's impossible, but to use Religion as something credible based on the delusional principles behind it is not practical. "


No similarities there.

Science updates if there's error.

Religion itself has errors if it's used as something scientific (if one believed they were the same, which they aren't obviously)....especially if people cherry-pick whatever verses in scriptures or books that makes that religion great and disregard the majority that has many contradictions.

Both are trying to understand, but with religion, they usually just slab "god/deity/other supernatural entities" as some explanation and usually stop there. Or they wait for science and just try to combine their conjectured religion with as "plausible" evidence that the Talking Teapot exists, or the JuJu Monster under the sea exists, and so forth.


And there's many other things as why Science/mathematics is not the same as spirituality/religion, but this distinction itself is SO obvious that it doesn't need deeper penetration.

Science is the critical evaluation of evidence in order to determine if something is true or not objectively.

Religion and spirituality are not concerned with objectivity.

To conflate the two is as foolish as conflating the mathematical terms zero and infinity. And yes, they are mathematical terms, created and defined by mathematicians and with very specific meanings that have never and will never change. Like many terms, they have been sloppily co-opted by pop culture and used to mean various and sundry things. If you're going to use the terms in their mathematical sense then you can't say they are equal.

Thread should be renamed Spirituality/Religion is the same thing as sloppy new-age concepts misusing terms borrowed from Science/Mathematics. :cheeky:

inb4 lock

Does anyone remember that mind-blowing video of just how awesomely huge the universe is? Where you fly through clusters of stars and are then told, no those aren't stars but clusters of galaxies? Yeah, thats a spiritual experience

Oh yeah, I remember that - amazing stuff!!! And no belief in a god or eternal spirit required. So if by spirituality you simply mean transcendent experiences then I agree some of the products of science and math do that. That's not the goal of science or math though - the goal is precision - to make sure were not just making crap up. Now obviously much of the spiritual experience is beyond anything that can be objectively studied, and therefore beyond the reach of science or math. And obviously, neither religion nor spirituality have anything to say about the Pythagoream Theorem or Evolution (aside from certain exremist branches of religion denying it of course), though they do like to try to make statements about some of the fringe ideas in science when those ideas seem to suggest something transcendent or when they introduce a new level of mystery - a new gap for God. But by its very nature science doesn't make assertions that can't be verified, which is exactly what religion and spirituality do.

However of course - science isn't a way to give life meaning like religion and spirituality - it's just a way of observing things intended to separate fact from fiction in objective terms (or as close as we can get to objectivity). So all I'm saying is, though sometimes we an derive a veru spiritual experience from science or math, that's not it's goal. It's more just a property of the real world, which is what science explores.