Thread: Mathematical argument towards reality of mystical experience

http://www.erowid.org/spirit/writings/spir...writings1.shtml

I found this very convincing. Not only did he prove his argument logically, he also included his counterpoints.

It certainly could be possible that a higher plane of existence is real, but I still don't see why it has to be "god".

Bah, make me bump why don't you.

-----

"The distinction between past, present, and future
is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
Albert Einstein


I. WHAT DOES THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE "TEACH"?

The mystical experience primarily "teaches" that
consciousness is infinite in space and eternal in time. This
infinite consciousness has been called God, Brahman, Buddha
mind, nirvana, cosmic consciousness, etc.

During the mystical experience consciousness appears to
instantaneously span the entirety of space and time,
consequently it appears that all distances across space and
time equal zero. This "zero" space-time is the formless
"void" spoken of by Eastern mystics. So the primary lesson
of the mystical experience is that distances across space
and time equal zero. From this lesson arises the theory that
space and time are "illusions."


II. HOW DO WE PROVE THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE?

To prove that the mystical experience is valid we must prove
that all distances across space and time equal zero. Sound
impossible? Not quite: to prove that all distances equal
zero we must simply establish that the process of the
measurement of space and time is * symmetrical.* If the
process of the measurement of space and time is symmetrical,
the equal but opposite components of this measurement,
expressed as equal but opposite numbers, will neutralize one
another so that the sum equals zero.


III. SYMMETRY OF MEASUREMENT

Distance across space and time is measured by * motion *
from point (a) to point (B) in either space or time. The
motion of this measurement is described mathematically by a
sequential progression from zero: 0 1 2 3 4 -->. Each number
marks a unit of space or time across which motion has
occurred.

The nature of the motion of measurement is * relative.* As
Albert Einstein said, "Every motion must be considered only
as a relative motion."

Relative motion is * symmetrical.* Describing the symmetry
of motion, Einstein observed that as you fall down to the
Earth (-), it is equally true that the Earth rises up to you
(+). Thus, the event of your falling = {(+) + (-)} =
symmetry.

Motion through space is mechanically equivalent to motion
through time: as you move from second (1) toward second (2)
--> (+), it is simultaneously true that second (2) moves
symmetrically toward you <-- (-). The flow of time is
symmetrical: this moment is passing by into the past. Your
forward motion into the future (-->) *is* the backward
motion (<--) of this moment into the past. Thus time flow =
{(<--) + (-->)}.

As measurement is motion, and as motion is symmetrical, all
measurements are symmetrical. (For graphics, animations, and
info about the symmetry of nonuniform motion, e-mail:
[email protected].)


All measurement is motion
Motion is symmetrical
Thus: all measurement is symmetrical

As the motion of all measurements of space and time is
symmetrical, the mathematical description of all
measurements is symmetrical progressions from zero:

[-- 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 --]

the structure of all measurements

Every measurement of one unit of space or time is composed
of *two symmetrical states of motion.* These symmetrical
states of motion, being equal but opposite, are described
mathematically by the equal but opposite numbers 1 and -1.
As two equal but opposite numbers are derived from every
measurement of one unit of space or time, the complete
calculation of every measurement of one unit of space or
time = {(1) + (-1)} = 0.

All measurements are symmetrical
Symmetry = 0
Thus: all measurements = 0

Traditional measurement theory describes only * half * of
the symmetry of measurement and then erroneously assumes the
complete calculation of a measurement to be nonzero. If the
nature of X is (+) & (-), then X = {(+) + (-)}. As the
nature of motion is (+) & (-), and as measurement = motion,
measurement = {(+) + (-)}.

IV. CONCLUSION

What was required to be proven -- that the measurement of
space and time is symmetrical and thus equals zero -- has
been proven. By proving that all measurements of space and
time equal zero, all measurements of all physical phenomena
must also equal zero, for space and time are the basis of
all physical measurements. That the experience of space and
time *seems* to contradict an absolute zero sum is a
consequence of misunderstanding what "zero" means and does
not alter the logical proof which dictates that space and
time equal zero.

As all measurements of space and time must equal zero due to
the symmetry of relative motion, logic clearly dictates that
the claim arising from the mystical experience -- that all
distances across space and time equal zero -- is true.
Unless it can be shown that relative motion is not
symmetrical, logic dictates that the mystical experience
must be the experience of the truth.


-------------------------------
* APPENDIX *

I. EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE?

It is already an established fact that relative motion is
symmetrical. What I am doing here that is new -- to the best
of my knowledge -- is: (1) observe that all measurements =
symmetrical motion, then (2) add the symmetrical components
of this motion, expressed as equal but opposite integers, to
reach a sum, and (3) apply this sum to all measurements.
That's all -- it's very simple and logical. This logical
process is know as * symmetrics,* which is a function of *
neutral mechanics.* To disprove symmetrics one must simply
show that one of its three simple functions is flawed.


II. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

1. The absolute value of 1 and -1 is 2.

Indeed, there are two numeric components, 1 and -1, the
absolute value of each being 1, hence we can say 1+1=2. But
this does not alter the fact that these two numerical
components are equal but opposite, and thus that (1+(-1))=0.

2. Nonuniform motion is asymmetrical and thus non-zero.

Rotational motion is nonuniform and symmetrical.* The
differences between two objects one in uniform and the other
in nonuniform motion are differences of force and time. In
and of themselves, each of these factors is symmetrical. If
the force I feel is symmetrical, i.e., equal but opposite in
nature, its sum is zero. If I feel a force and you feel no
force, the net sum is still zero, and thus symmetrical.

3. You cannot add the symmetrical components of relative motion.

If this were so we could not call relative motion
"symmetrical." Yet we can and we do. By doing so we are
inherently adding the equal but opposite components of
relative to motion to reach a sum, that sum is "symmetry"
and symmetry is zero.

These points and counter points are greatly condensed. For
complete version, or to post a new argument against the
logical verification, e-mail: [email protected].

Those who have raised these counterarguments have conceded
that they are not effective arguments against symmetrics
(the process of adding the symmetrical components of
motion). Currently there is no effective argument against
symmetrics and the logical verification.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Max Plank
Nobel physicist

\"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its *
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because *
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up *
that is familiar with the idea from the beginning.\"[/b]

Nice quote and nice article. But I dont see the mystics involved.

Yeah, he didn't state that very well.

"As all measurements of space and time must equal zero due to
the symmetry of relative motion, logic clearly dictates that
the claim arising from the mystical experience -- that all
distances across space and time equal zero -- is true.
Unless it can be shown that relative motion is not
symmetrical, logic dictates that the mystical experience
must be the experience of the truth. "

I'm afraid I have make some objections.

To prove that the mystical experience is valid we must prove
that all distances across space and time equal zero.

This is the first part I have a problem with. To prove that space and time corresponds to these so-called \"mystic experiences\" does not prove anything about those experiences. I may claim that I have visions of purple gophers. Proving the existence of purple gophers proves nothing about the validity of my visions. It could be considered evidence, but it is a far cry from proof.

Similiary, Goddard states that those who have mystical experiences see distances of time and space as being zero, and hence proving that this is true will prove the reality of these experiences. Not quite.

The rest of this article consists of nothing more than meaningless wordplay:

If the process of the measurement of space and time is symmetrical, the equal but opposite components of this measurement,
expressed as equal but opposite numbers, will neutralize one
another so that the sum equals zero.

If I walk ten paces down my street, I can say \"I walked ten paces south\" or \"My house receded ten paces north\". Sure. But then to say, \"Ten south plus ten north equals zero therefore I really traversed no distance at all\" is a complete non-sequitur. It's a complete abuse of the notion of symmetry and the relativity of motion to make such a conclusion.

Distance across space and time is measured by * motion *

This is a bizarre statement. I fail to see any motion occuring when I look at two objects of unequal length. Nothing has to move in order to inform me that one is longer than another, and hence spans a greater distance across space. Motion is not a necessary component of mesaurement.

The nature of the motion of measurement is * relative.* As
Albert Einstein said, \"Every motion must be considered only
as a relative motion.\"

The appeal to scientific authority to gain credibility is the oldest trick in the book. Sure motion is relative. Does the apple fall or the earth rise? You can argue either way, but what you can't deny is that at the end of the process the two objects are closer together than they were at the start.

The bulk of the argument after this is simply fluff driven by the erroneous initial assumptions. Then we get to:

Traditional measurement theory describes only * half * of
the symmetry of measurement and then erroneously assumes the
complete calculation of a measurement to be nonzero. If the
nature of X is (+) & (-), then X = {(+) + (-)}. As the
nature of motion is (+) & (-), and as measurement = motion,
measurement = {(+) + (-)}.

Pseudo-mathematical symbols introduced to impress the average reader, but he's simply restating the same non-sequitur.
\"If the nature of X is (+) & (-) then X = {(+) + (-)}.\" This isn't saying anything. It's nonsense. Sure, I can say \"It's ten degrees above zero outside\" or say \"It's negative ten degrees below zero\". Any measurement may be conceived as a positive OR a negative...but the point is that it can't be BOTH at the same time. One fixes a reference point, then one measures. To change from positive to negative is to change the reference point. To then add them together and get zero is simply to confirm that your measurement was accurate in both directions. It doesn't mean the measurement really measured nothing!

Let's move into the appendix:

What I am doing here that is new -- to the best
of my knowledge -- is: (1) observe that all measurements =
symmetrical motion, then (2) add the symmetrical components
of this motion, expressed as equal but opposite integers, to
reach a sum, and (3) apply this sum to all measurements.
That's all -- it's very simple and logical. This logical
process is know as * symmetrics,* which is a function of *
neutral mechanics.* To disprove symmetrics one must simply
show that one of its three simple functions is flawed.

Yes, number (2) is flawed. This step has no justification. There's no reason why we should do that, and there's no reason why we should give any particular meaning to the results, aside from the obvious one, which is that 1 + (-1) = 0.

II. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Here's another great tactic for promoting nonsense: Offer poorly constructed \"counter-arguments\" and then \"disprove\" them. \"My oponents say that grass is blue! But clearly it is green! So I must be right!\"

1. The absolute value of 1 and -1 is 2.

This is not even a mathematical statement. I suppose what he really means is \"the absolute value of 1 plus the absolute value of -1 is 2\". That is, of course, true.

Indeed, there are two numeric components, 1 and -1, the
absolute value of each being 1, hence we can say 1+1=2. But
this does not alter the fact that these two numerical
components are equal but opposite, and thus that (1+(-1))=0.

1 + (-1) = 0. How profound! So what? He has failed to justify his REASON for adding these two opposite numbers. That's the issue. As I said: poorly constructed coutner argument given just to bolster the reader's confidence in what he's saying.

3. You cannot add the symmetrical components of relative motion.

If this were so we could not call relative motion
\"symmetrical.\" Yet we can and we do. By doing so we are
inherently adding the equal but opposite components of
relative to motion to reach a sum, that sum is \"symmetry\"
and symmetry is zero.

Once again: Yes, you CAN add them, but WHY do you add them, and what does it MEAN when you add them? He conveniently slides over this issue in the beginning of the article---in other words, HE ASSUMES HIS CONCLUSION---then just spends the rest of the article saying \"No one can deny that 1 + (-1) = 0, so I must be right!\"

Those who have raised these counterarguments have conceded
that they are not effective arguments against symmetrics
(the process of adding the symmetrical components of
motion). Currently there is no effective argument against
symmetrics and the logical verification.

There's nothing to argue against! There is no logic in what he is proposing. He's simply saying, "A measurement is positive in one direction and negative in the other, and if you add them, the total is zero, which means in fact you haven't measured anything!" But this statement is devoid of any meaning, and hence so is this entire article.

I believe he's talking about quantum mechanics, matter in relation to the universe.

True though, full of sheeat. Although, I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, and I'm sure neither do you, but hey. I don't like to assume from other people's word of mouth.

I get the point that relative motion isn't added and therefore the whole thing is false. The spaceship moves 100 miles from earth, or the earth moves 100 miles from the spaceship, not both. If it was both one of them is not opposite the other, but they are both positive and must be added to get a distance of 200 miles between the two bodies.

I don't think it attempts to prove mystical experiences, but only to prove the existance of an omnimind, something which we, as concious beings, must be a part of. It's logic fails, but such an omnimind could still exist, but isn't proven.

Hey, Berserk Exodus: I've spent the last 4 years looking up anything and everything I could find about Quantum Physics and you're completely right: It's a load of crap. Quantum Physics isn't even revalent, though, since it deals with things on an incredibly small scale (hence 'quantum'). But whoever made this 'explanation' was a dolt.

Whats a dolt?

That article didn't really seem to prove anything...

It claims that all distances equal zero but I still have to drive to the damn grocery store if I want food!