2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ JamaicanBushman

 

Well - whoever you are, at least it's possible to communicate with you in a way that seemed impossible with ViYY.

 

But complex numbers are much more basic than Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry. They can even be introduced as simple arrows in the Cartesian plane (as I did in the linked topic). The proof that the complex numbers are commutative is straightforward, and no amount of talk about Clifford algebras or Non-commutative geometry will undo the provable and well known commutativity of the complex numbers. You will have to point to errors in the construction of the complex numbers and/or in the proof of their commutativity to refute the claim that the the complex numbers are commutative. It would also be nice when you would present an example of two complex number u and v such that u.v is not equal to v.u .

 

Once again, I don’t really like this sort of challenge because this isn’t a natural realisation I’ve come to. It’s uncomfortable, your asking me to prove something I haven’t claimed. 

 

What are the practical uses of complex numbers?

 

I’m disappointed that you haven’t commented on the prospect of the turning the light around connection, the red cinnabar connection or my partial understanding of jing, qi and Shen and their connections.  

 

This leads me to ask did you read the Kaufman paper, or my comments? You haven’t acknowledged any of what I’ve said. I believe this is a fair ask.

 

The thing is you can’t actually plot complex numbers on traditional 3 dimensional Cartesian space. One axis must include imaginary numbers, this axis, this direction is invisible to us. Isn’t it’? The i axis isn’t vertical, horizontal or depth is it? This is an honest question 

 

Did you watch the video on non communicative geometry. It states that the internal ruler/gauge principle was a trick used to simplify and explain something that was impossible to explain, a lot like invisible numbers, which are a part of complex numbers.

 

Furthermore we know that with communicative math two numbers can not multiply to produce a negative number. Can you prove that communicative maths can produce an imaginary number? 

 

Finally after me not knowing the answer but being willing to search for one I found this 

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/147166/does-my-definition-of-double-complex-noncommutative-numbers-make-any-sense

 

which leads to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

 

Which leads us back to here https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=8sAmXOOjFcKNlwSy1qmgAw&q=quartenions+eddie+oshins&oq=quartenions+eddie+oshins&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..35i304i39j33i160l2.28650.29096..29334...0.0..0.141.396.2j2......0....1.........33i21.m7RpYn2zU5g

 

 

So in that quaternions extend the complex numbers and are therefore complex numbers. Quaternions are non communicative. As shown. I’m not researching this for you any further. It’s not where I need to be on the path right now. 

 

whats a Quaternion, I don’t know, seems to be an equation that models 3D objects spin, but you should be able to tell me. 

 

Infsct you should be telling us. So can you tell me what the difference between a complex number and a Quaternion is. It seems it’s got 3 dimensions of imaginary numbers in it. Which leads me back to what is an imaginary number in real life?

 

anyway let’s get back to  voidisyinyang and see what he has to say

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I’m a follower of Voidisyinyang. Although he’s only just finding out. 

 

TL;DR when solving imaginary (Why lateral, why not invisible, not directional enough?) numbers we have to separate in a particular way.

for example: sqrt of -25 = sqrt of 25 times sqrt of -1. There has to be the sqrt of -1 to produce 5times sqrt -1. Invisible algebra.  We can’t do: sqrt of -25 = sqrt of -5 time sqrt of -5. We can see this in video3 of the series mentioned below around 3 minutes in. Also notice the times symbol used is the same in this video about non-communicative algebra. 

 

This maths is a case in point. I went to the complex number lesson thread, I got turned of by the communication style.

Luckily there was an interesting post with some interesting points early on

 

On 27/08/2018 at 3:39 PM, Lost in Translation said:

Imaginary numbers always bothered me in school so I look forward to your treatise.

 

I beleive there is a link to Taoism after looking at it and according to voidisyinyangs previous work and my new understanding. Imaginary and complex numbers are unappealing because it’s hard to ground them in reality, in my opinion. 

 

On 27/08/2018 at 4:38 PM, rideforever said:

Some "interesting" questions are :
- do humans play with their imagination / complex / irrational / unreal ideas because they have not been able to comprehend how to make progress in reality ?

- why are real numbers good ?

- what is the "spiritual" meaning usefulness purpose behind all these concepts ?

 

To which I answer: Yes; I don’t know, they are discrete and good for classical objects like apples and asteroids at a surface level of 3dimensions and; I’ll come to that in a moment but first

 

i got stuck by the time this video came up and I watch them until part 11 although I think I slept through part 9. 

On 27/08/2018 at 7:42 PM, joeblast said:

much of what's trying to be said is well detailed in a nice way by the numberphile videos "Imaginary numbers are real"

 

numberphile and mathologer are excellent channels

 

 

And from the way I understood it I began having small incomplete eureka moments. I’ve never understood this part of Voidisyinyangs work (can I just say Drew?) before but I believe I understand a little more now. I’m not a mathematician or a physicist (quantum or not) but I’m interested and like to understand, so bear with me. (Also I’m writing long posts because I get ten a day and don’t want to waste them).  This following video helped me understand non-communicative geometry.

 

It seems he answered you question early on with a Kauffman paper and a quote 

“These Majorana Fermions can be symbolized by Clif-
ford algebra generators a and b such that a [squared]
= b[squared]= 1
and ab = −ba. One can take a as the iterant corre-
sponding to a period two oscillation, and b as the
time shifting operator. Then their product ab is a
square root of minus one in a non-commutative con-
text.”

 

in terms of the problem with treating complex numbers as communicative, I Hop I’ve shown you they aren’t from early on. I may be wrong.  However in real life it seems imaginary/invisible/internal/lateral numbers deal can speak to the kinds of quantum objects such as the mirage particles ( which seem to be virtual photons ). 

 

I add internal to the list of names (for the ironically and unimagintaively, poorly named) imaginary numbers as it perhaps could relate to this internal ruler/gauge principle from the non-communicative geometry video. 

 

Interestingly that mirage particle novel insights and experiements study voidisyinyang posted talks about not only virtual photons, but also turning the light back around. A name for meditation, zen, daoist and Buddhist. 

 

Im not sure how I feel being objectified as some sort of test subject to test voidisyinyang. Although this adds to his sage factor. I also expect to be disagreed with. I’m not even sure if what I said is right. But it feels right, to my gut

 

 

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Being understood makes one vulnerable to possibly legitimate criticism. It's much easier to pose as a genius by continually quoting scientific articles and by using scientific terms that one doesn't even understand oneself and by dropping the names of famous scientist that one claims to have corresponded with. I have noticed that ViYY makes big mistakes as soon as he writes something himself about mathematics (which I know a lot about), so he is obviously capable of posting pseudoscientific bullshit. That makes it highly doubtful that the rest of his posts would be of more value. The best option is to completely ignore it (call it "self-censorship" if you like), and to read the posts of those Bums who do have something interesting to offer and who at least make an attempt to be understood. 

 

I think voidisyinyang would appreciate if you challenged him on the mistakes you say he makes in mathematics. What mistakes in particular? Everything I’ve researched that he’s said has proved accurate. Voidisyinyang is certainly operating at a high level of complexity. This is confirmed by the fact that he has been working in a new field of study ecomusicology for some time. This is one of the markers of a high MHC (Model of Hierachical Complexity) level as explained in the listening society. 

 

We should never mock or disparage someone who finds who finds it hard to communicate ideas. This is senseless. I don’t think it’s wise to suggest he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about when you are basing that on a difficulty to understand someone. Ignorance is rarely the best option, it leads to apathy.  You have already said you are sceptical about qi as a concept.  In my mind jing is electrochemical neurohormones, qi is electromagnetism and Shen is light. I could be wrong about that. However this matches up with jing in the gut (which produces the most serotonin), qi of the heart (which produces the largest electromagnetic field) and Shen in the brain  (with the highest concentrations of biophotons). This alone leads us to acknowledge that they may have known more than we do about our bodies by looking within, as opposed to looking without. 

 

Let us be real, we are all suffering from information overload, which means we don’t do as much research into what he says because it would mean losing time doing other things. Also our attention is not operating at a maxium. In terms of your original question you could do as you normally do when it comes to meditation and visualise a light in your gut, red according to a wise mans research. Working to open your lower Dan tien will provide a foundation for strengthening the practice you already are committed to.

 

6 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

I define clear cut differently than you, maybe because english is a second language. 

 

But you do answer the question about being understood: If it requires reference books to understand your theory you do not wish to be understood. 

 

😎 Cool 

 

 

Perhaps he does wish to be understood, but only those who are truly able to understand and who truly want to. This is akin to the sages of Old writing using code names, such as swallow the red cinnabar pill. This could be mercury sulphide (not the best idea), it could also be swallowing saliva infused with properties from the centre of the lower Dan tien. The Dan tiens were called cinnabar fields, and the centre of the lowest one was red (http://www.goldenelixir.com/jindan/dantian.html) Studies show that pranayama breathing can change the chemical content of saliva

(1st

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4383272/

2nd 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1286-7

3rd
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501575/ )

 

This is also know as the Golden nectar.

 

I just gave references and as we are studying ancient esoteric (science) texts. It’s necessary for research. Let’s not be overly hard on voidisyinyang. He does good works. 

 

6 hours ago, thelerner said:

I went there and read or rather skimmed the paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/854/htm.  I don't see what it has to do with Taoist Meditation, at all.  I can see how it has to do with wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff, but not Meditation. 

From my limited understanding this paper relates to something I’ve never understood about voidisyinyangs research. Borrowing energy from the future and virtual particles. Correct me if I’m wrong on that linkage voidisyinyang. The way these mirage particles are likened to the particle-antiparticle pairs that spring from quantum vacuums makes me think I’m not too far off. Quantum vacuum fluctuations to me is a confirmation of the all (yin and yang separated) emanating from the void (which is yinyang apparently)

 

12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The Weak Reality that Makes Quantum Phenomena more Natural: Novel Insights and Experiments

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Mordecai Waegell, Avshalom C. Elitzur

(Submitted on 12 Nov 2018)

voidisyinyang

To be fair to everyone. I too have trouble understanding your blog posts and your style of communication. I liken it to the first time I read the dao de jing. I liked what I saw, and I understood very little of it. I reread and did research and joined dots and I still am. I came to understand more. I’m not even sure if I want this all to be too simplified. I don’t even know if it can be yet. I’m not even training as much as I could be. Still I keep coming back to your posts simply to prompt me to train. And to understand and be able to explain to myself and others this amazing process.  Thanks for sharing about the polyphonic singing. It led me to believe perhaps we can save the world, if we were able to transmit this felt wisdom as intellectual knowledge.

 

and thank you all for reading my first post 🙏🏾

Hi everyone, 

 

I believe that void is yinyang.

 

I believe that it is difficult to communicate higher level concepts

 

I believe that the closer we get to explaining daoist inner alchemical phenomena the better off humanity will be. 

 

Without our it we will continue to destroy the world with out alchemy in the form of science. 

 

That is all.