Can We Know Truth?

[Marblehead]

39 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

How do you know that?

A "wild ass guess" is almost as good as the truth.

 

[MopaiWarlord]

2 hours ago, dosa said:

All living beings have Buddhahood

 

All living beings have ignorance and sin.

All living beings are trapped in samsara.

[Marblehead]

I am an innocent free bird.

 

[wandelaar]

Strange how a topic about fundamental doubt quickly turns into a podium for the expression of personal dogmatic "truths". 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Strange how a topic about fundamental doubt quickly turns into a podium for the expression of personal dogmatic "truths". 

Well, sure.  We don't like to or can't talk about objective truths because they violate our beliefs.  So we resort to our subjective truths.

 

Dogmatic?  Yeah, I suppose that is a fair word to use here.

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 5/10/2018 at 7:03 PM, Lost in Translation said:

The entirety of our knowledge comes in through our perceptions.

 

The perception of a thing is not the thing itself.

 

Can we know the truth?

 

Is there a truth to be known?

 

How would we know?

 

So what is called "direct perception" or "direct knowledge" in nonwestern philosophy is discovered through the process of logical inference, aka the source of the I-thought, as the source of all thoughts, as an eternal listening process. Westerners assume that logic as axioms have circular causality - hence the paradoxes of the Cretin's Liar, and Zeno, etc. but through logical inference we realize that listening is actually a noncommutative algebra that is multiplicative as a natural resonance. So the Ether as formless awareness-energy is not a "thing" that is "perceived" but rather the process of listening as logical inference is resonating with time itself that is the future and the past both overlapping asymmetrically, as complementary opposites of yang (future) and yin (past) - such that light is not the fastest signal to measure. There is therefore no universal preferred rest frame, but rather light is our unique soul subjectivity as the rest frame that is "turned around" and since light has no zero mass, then it has an inherent energy that is momentum from the future - the momentum phase is a higher frequency, from the future, with negative time due to quantum noncommutative logic. The older language is in modern human history, the more musical and sophisticated the language is, with the San Bushmen language as our original human language - and so music is universal to all human cultures, based on 1:2:3:4 as noncommutative logic of eternal listening. This was mapped by the Daoists (and in India as the three gunas, their oldest philosophy) as a mind-body transformation training process of natural resonance.

 

Quote

listen to it, but it does not give any sound. Then, indeed, it is clear that the Dao is complete (quan). Thus, it can bring forth sounds and echoes; generate qi-energies and things;

He Yan was one of the leading intellectual figures of the early third century

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/

I have new quotes on my blog about how science is struggling to realize there is no universal preferred rest frame. We want to cling to our spiritual ego of light but instead light has a secret source in the Yuan Qi - the formless-awareness vibration that is the 5th dimension. This is known as the truth of logical inference, called "vichara" - and is perceived directly through the process of vichara or rather eternal listening.

 

[s1va]

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

This is known as the truth of logical inference, called "vichara" - and is perceived directly through the process of vichara or rather eternal listening.

 

Are you sure vichara is eternal listening?  May be you are mixing it up with some other term.

 

Vichara world be questioning or analysis rather than inference or listening.

[Lost in Translation]

10 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

On 5/10/2018 at 5:03 PM, Lost in Translation said:

The perception of a thing is not the thing itself.

why not?

 

Good question. It seems you are peeling away the layers of perception and bringing in non dualism here. If I misunderstand you then please let me know. Assuming you are bringing non dualism into the mix then we have only one (insert word here). Since there is only one, subject, object and perception are also only one - hence the perception of the thing perceived is the thing perceived. But for this to be true one must first accept non dual as truth. 

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

the perception of the thing perceived is the thing perceived.

You raise an interesting problem in your OP, positing it on questionable assumptions.

 

When you say that perception of a thing is not the thing - you actually mean that the perception is somehow inferior or false relative to the thing. That's an assumption. Further, you assume the truth to be the total info about a thing, or the sum total of all the info about the all things. That's another assumption. Plus the undefined 'truth'.

 

 

[MopaiWarlord]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

How do you know that?

 

MopaiWarlord is beyond all limits, the unlimited power.

Edited September 23, 2018 by MopaiWarlord

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, MopaiWarlord said:

 

I am beyond all limits, the unlimited power.

 

You should have seen this coming...

 

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl0OsHIDepA

 

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

Are you sure vichara is external listening?  May be you are mixing it up with some other term.

 

Vichara world be questioning or analysis rather than inference or listening.

 

I never wrote the word "external" - you must have just skimmed what I wrote. Or should I say you did not really "listen" to what I wrote. If you want to discuss vichara - Ramana Maharshi called it the "Three in one unity" - so it is based on the three gunas of no guna. This is the same as Daoism - only the three gunas got misrepresented by Brahmin philosophy as a symmetric logic. This is why Westerners are easily confused by nonwestern shamanic meditation. It gets dismissed as "woo woo" when in fact it is the highest level of logic.

For example consider the Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes:

Quote

Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?

So Westerners promote the wrong logic! They do not understand noncommutative logic - unless they study very high level esoteric science. A Fields Medal is much harder to get than a Nobel Prize in science. Daoist logic is noncommutative logic. But a typical Westerner has been brainwashed since 10th grade school with algebraic geometry logic as "objective" truth. Nope - that was wrong. I knew this in 10th grade so I secretly rejected the Pythagorean Theorem. I knew this because I had studied music logic deeply and so I had intuitively discovered noncommutative phase logic.

 

So when you say "external listening" - I can demonstrate to you that listening is not "external" or at least not limited as such. But the point here is to just focus on the logic - so who is asking these questions? That is the real issue. The West thinks it understands sound but listening has eluded science - unless of course you get into esoteric noncommutative phase.

 

[Lost in Translation]

Here are my OP positions for those who may not want to navigate to tab 1.

 

On 5/10/2018 at 5:03 PM, Lost in Translation said:

The entirety of our knowledge comes in through our perceptions.

 

The perception of a thing is not the thing itself.

 

33 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

You raise an interesting problem in your OP, positing it on questionable assumptions.

 

When you say that perception of a thing is not the thing - you actually mean that the perception is somehow inferior or false relative to the thing. That's an assumption. Further, you assume the truth to be the total info about a thing, or the sum total of all the info about the all things. That's another assumption. Plus the undefined 'truth'.

 

I would not say the perception of a thing is "inferior" or "false." Rather, I would say it's "different." 

 

For example, I have an apple. The apple is sitting on a table. I am looking at the apple so I also have a perception of an apple. Clearly "an apple" and "perception of an apple" are not the same thing.

 

Returning to truth we could say there is "truth" and there is "perception of truth." The perception of truth might be foggy or clear. It may even be perfectly clear. But regardless of its clarity "truth" and "perception of truth" are not the same. They may be functionally equivalent - and that is a very good thing! - but they are not the same.

[Nungali]

Sometimes I get fooled;  I thought I knew something was true, and it wasn't.  But I get fooled much less often, by the reverse ; knowing the lie.

 

Some people are  soooo bad at lying, and they think they are getting away with it  ....

 

... unless they dont realise they are lying           ... can it become that 'habitual' ?

[Lost in Translation]

38 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

Daoist logic is noncommutative logic. But a typical Westerner has been brainwashed since 10th grade school with algebraic geometry logic as "objective" truth. Nope - that was wrong. I knew this in 10th grade so I secretly rejected the Pythagorean Theorem. I knew this because I had studied music logic deeply and so I had intuitively discovered noncommutative phase logic.

 

Hi Voidisyinyang! I found a short video by Numberphile on youtube that I think you might really like. I'll include it below in a spoiler to not drag this thread off topic. I think the video really helps to explain via analogy to computer graphics and image rotation using imaginary numbers what noncommutative logic means.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Lost in Translation

[Taoist Texts]

13 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Returning to truth we could say there is "truth" and there is "perception of truth."

what is 'truth' again?

[Nungali]

10 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

what is 'truth' again?

 

Thats better  

 

Truth is :    'Yes, I did put that scratch in your car door when i borrowed, and it was entirely my own fault . "

 

'The Truth'   ... about   that matter ^  is the same . We can know the truth about certain matters .

 

But 'The Truth'   'generally' or even 'universally' or 'cosmically'  ....     nope .,  it a made up human head  trip  .

Edited September 23, 2018 by Nungali

[Lost in Translation]

11 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

what is 'truth' again?

 

Truth is an axiomatic assertion. It is "that which is in its own right, independent of anything external to it." 

 

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

it a made up human head  trip

 

Maybe.

 

Is this progress? I don't want to drop into nihilism by defining truth as some fungible perception, but I do admit that I find defining truth as an abstraction axiomatic assertion is less than satisfying.

[s1va]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

I never wrote the word "external" - you must have just skimmed what I wrote. Or should I say you did not really "listen" to what I wrote. If you want to discuss vichara - Ramana Maharshi called it the "Three in one unity" - so it is based on the three gunas of no guna. This is the same as Daoism - only the three gunas got misrepresented by Brahmin philosophy as a symmetric logic. This is why Westerners are easily confused by nonwestern shamanic meditation. It gets dismissed as "woo woo" when in fact it is the highest level of logic.

For example consider the Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes:

So Westerners promote the wrong logic! They do not understand noncommutative logic - unless they study very high level esoteric science. A Fields Medal is much harder to get than a Nobel Prize in science. Daoist logic is noncommutative logic. But a typical Westerner has been brainwashed since 10th grade school with algebraic geometry logic as "objective" truth. Nope - that was wrong. I knew this in 10th grade so I secretly rejected the Pythagorean Theorem. I knew this because I had studied music logic deeply and so I had intuitively discovered noncommutative phase logic.

 

So when you say "external listening" - I can demonstrate to you that listening is not "external" or at least not limited as such. But the point here is to just focus on the logic - so who is asking these questions? That is the real issue. The West thinks it understands sound but listening has eluded science - unless of course you get into esoteric noncommutative phase.

 

 

It's a typo.  Just corrected it.  I meant eternal (not external) listening as mentioned in your first post.  No need to get upset over this and make assumptions on my intentions and actions.  I am not interested in debating this or to engage in lengthy off topic discussions.  Have a nice day!

 

 

[wandelaar]

@ LiT

 

About complex numbers:

 

Spoiler

That was a good video! But it stopped right before the crucial point was made! See here for the rest of the video:

 

 

As you see the complex numbers are still commutative, but for the quaternions this property (as a general rule) is lost. So ViYY should have referred to the quaternions (instead of the complex numbers) to make at least some sense.

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, s1va said:

 

It's a typo.  Just corrected it.  I meant eternal (not external) listening as mentioned in your first post.  No need to get upset over this and make assumptions on my intentions and actions.  I am not interested in debating this or to engage in lengthy off topic discussions.  Have a nice day!

 

 

yeah you made a typo - thanks for that clarification. This is the problem with capitalism as well - bosses, managers, etc. give "orders" and yet are not articulate enough to put their concepts into words. Then refuse to have any kind of discussion as equals when it's the workers who are doing the job, and therefore know the details of the job the best. Communism was worse - with it's top down committees. But science does require a level of understanding to "play the game" so to speak. So yes I did take your words at face value - an assumption that I had no reason to question. You wrote external so I figured you meant external. For example people have their ears on the OUTSIDE of their head - so most people would probably think listening is an "external" perception. Another example - when people first began reading written texts, it was common to read out loud and so the internal voice was not yet identified as the person's "own" voice based on what they were reading "externally."

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Truth is an axiomatic assertion. It is "that which is in its own right, independent of anything external to it." 

 

 

Maybe.

 

Is this progress? I don't want to drop into nihilism by defining truth as some fungible perception, but I do admit that I find defining truth as an abstraction axiomatic assertion is less than satisfying.

Bertrand Russell stated that

Quote

"real numbers are a convenient fiction."

I have corresponded with math professors - like Luigi Borzacchini - and I quote:

Quote

Negation, truth and being ground an antinomical argument, from the “negative judgement paradox” (impossibility of  asserting falsity), through the “liar paradox” (contradictory nature of self-asserting   falsity), to set-theoretical paradoxes and to Gödel's and Tarski's limitative   theorems.    

Luigi Borzacchini, THE SOPHIST. GENESIS OF FORMAL THINKING IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND  MATHEMATICS. (Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Bari).

Quote

Continuum is not only inexpressible, but also external to the knowledge of reality.... Below the surface of the antinomical form, we can maybe reveal the deep 'preestablished disharmony' of the link between human knowledge and reality...."In modern physics, as in pre-Socratic philosophy, the observer is a mouse in the cheese: he cannot be indifferent....After a few centuries of harmony and sleeping of paradoxes, again the ever-lasting antinomies and pre-established disharmony frame our knowledge enterprise."  "... but we must even say that, neither tendentially, syntactic   representation can thoroughly mirror reality, become someway iconic. And this     because it is marked in its basic principles with a preestablished disharmony, that      is even its hidden evolutive principle.      It plays the role of source of never ending paradoxes well recognizable ever since      the beginning of formal thinking.  

 

So you don't need quaternions to establish noncommutative phase logic. As Alain Connes points out - music theory is noncommutative phase logic. Daoist logic is also based on music theory that is noncommutative phase.

 

it's important not to just accept rote theorems - but rather to think on our own. So again consider what Alain Connes has to say on this subject.

Quote

One day I understood the following: That we are born in quantum mechanics. We can not deny that... Quantum mechanics has been verified. The superposition principle has been verified. The spin system is really a sphere. This has been verified. This has been checked so many times. That we can not say that Nature is classical. No. Nature is quantum. Nature is very quantum. From this quantum stuff, we have to understand our vision, our very classical, because of natural selection way of seeing things can emerge. It's very very difficult of course. 

So quantum physics is based on time-frequency uncertainty and this is also from noncommutative phase logic.

 

Quote

All formulae in quantum mechanics can be written without [h-bar] if energies and masses are consequently expressed in forms of frequencies. For example the uncertainty relation... can be expressed [change in position aka wavelength or time x change in frequency is greater than or equal to 1/2], which is already well known from classical physics for wave packets.

 

2011 - Journal of Physics, Kurt Jung,

Uncertainty principle and music tuning:

 

Quote

You may think that the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with music. But the formula can be transformed into the relation between time and frequency of waves. ...Now we have found out the fact that it is impossible for us to know the exact frequencies in our sound wave at an exact moment in time.... In other words, theoretically we cannot get the perfect fifth tone with a frequency f from a root tone with a frequency f₀ by calculating f = f₀ × 3/2.

This is the secret of Daoist logic.

Quote

"Non commutativity is the central mathematical concept expressing the uncertainty."

2012 pdf link

So

to be dependent on axioms means to try to contain time into a geometric boundary - this is why Western logic can not "solve" truth - except as Socrates taught: Know Thyself. It is an open iteration of time that is noncommutative, as the source of the I-thought, the One that is noncommutative, as plus 1, minus 1.

I already posted math professor Louis Kauffman proving that complex numbers are from noncommutative phase logic.

So people have denied considering the evidence. I can only repost it - but what can you do about psychological denial? We are talking about deep hard-wired mass mind control. Again as Connes states:

Quote

Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?

You are not convinced yet because you refuse to consider Connes.

I have posted the links to his lectures. I have posted the links to math professor Louis Kauffman. I have posted Eddie Oshins. I have posted Basil J. Hiley, another quantum physics professor I have corresponded with.

What can I say? If people are mass-mind controlled by Western symmetric logic - that's their problem. But if you are willing to consider the evidence then there you go.

Professor Louis Kauffman proves that complex numbers are noncommutative (as the secret of real Neigong training, as per Oshins) http://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/08/professor-louis-kauffman-proves-that.html

Why did I post this? Because I had contacted Professor Kauffman about this - before anyone brought it up on this website.

Quote

The simplest discrete system corresponds directly to
the square root of minus one, when the square root of
minus one is seen as an oscillation between plus and
minus one. This way thinking about the square root
of minus one as an iterant is explained below. More
generally, by starting with a discrete time series of
positions, one has immediately a non-commutativity
of observations and this non-commutativi ty can be
encapsulated in an iterant algebra

So this is also what Alain Connes states:

Quote

Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous. 

Quote

When Riemann wrote his essay on the foundations of geometry, he was incredibly careful. He said his ideas might not apply in the very small. Why? He said that the notion of a solid body of a ray of light doesn't make sense in the very small. So he was incredibly smart. His idea, I have never been able to understand his intuition...But however he wrote down explicitly that the geometry of space, of spacetime, should be encapsulated, should be given by the forces which hold the space together. Now it turns out this is exactly what we give here...One day I understood the following: That we are born in quantum mechanics. We can not deny that... Quantum mechanics has been verified. The superposition principle has been verified. The spin system is really a sphere. This has been verified. This has been checked so many times. That we can not say that Nature is classical. No. Nature is quantum. Nature is very quantum. From this quantum stuff, we have to understand our vision, our very classical, because of natural selection way of seeing things can emerge. It's very very difficult of course.  ...Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?....Our view of the spacetime is only an approximation, not the finite points, it's not good for inflation. But the inverse space of spinors is finite dimensional. Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous....  It is only because one drops commutativity that variables with a continuous range can coexist with variables with a countable range....What is a parameter? The parameter is time...If you stay in the classical world, you can not have a good set up for variables. Because variables with a continuous range can not coexist with variables of discrete range. When you think more, you find out there is a perfect answer. And this answer is coming from quantum mechanics....The real variability in the world is exactly is where are you in the spectrum [frequency] of this variable or operator. And what is quite amazing is that in this work that I did at the very beginning of my mathematical studies, the amazing fact is that exactly time is emerging from the noncommutivity. You think that these variables do not commute, first of all it is that they don't commute so you can have the discrete variable that coexists with the continuous variable. What you find out after awhile is that the origin of time is probably quantum mechanical and its coming from the fact that thanks to noncommutativity ONLY that one can write the time evolution of a system, in temperature, in heat bath, the time evolution is really coming from the noncommutativity of the variables....You really are in a different world, then the world of geometry, which we all like because we all like to draw pictures and think in a geometric manner. So what I am going to explain is a very strange way to think about geometry, from this point of view, which is quite different from drawing on the blackboard...I will start by asking an extremely simple question, which of course has a geometrical origin. I don't think there can be a simpler question. Where are we?....The mathematical question, what we want, to say where we are and this has two parts: What is our universe? What is the geometric space in which we are? And in which point in this universe we are. We can not answer the 2nd question without answering the first question, of course....You have to be able to tell the geometric space in an invariant manner....These invariants are refinements of the idea of the diameter. The inverse of the diameter of the space is related to the first Eigenoperator, capturing the vibrations of the space; the way you can hear the music of shapes...which would be its scale in the musical sense; this shape will have a certain number of notes, these notes will be given by the frequency and form the basic scale, at which the geometric object is vibrating....The scale of a geometric shape is actually not enough.... However what emerges, if you know not only the various frequencies but also the chords, and the point will correspond to the chords. Then you know the complete thing....It's a rather delicate thing....There is a very strange mathematical fact...If you take manifolds of the same dimension, which are extremely different...the inverse space of the spinor doesn't distinguish between two manifolds. The Dirac Operator itself has a scale, so it's a spectrum [frequency]. And the only thing you need to know...is the relative position of the algebra...the Eigenfunctions of the Dirac Operator....a "universal scaling system," manifests itself in acoustic systems....There is something even simpler which is what happens with a single string. If we take the most elementary shape, which is the interval, what will happen when we make it vibrate, of course with the end points fixed, it will vibrate in a very extremely simple manner. Each of these will produce a sound...When you look at the eigenfunctions of the disk, at first you don't see a shape but when you look at very higher frequencies you see a parabola. If you want the dimension of the shape you are looking at, it is by the growth of these eigenvariables. When talking about a string it's a straight line. When looking at a two dimensional object you can tell that because the eigenspectrum is a parabola.... They are isospectral [frequency with the same area], even though they are geometrically different....when you take the square root of these numbers, they are the same [frequency] spectrum but they don't have the same chords. There are three types of notes which are different....What do I mean by possible chords? I mean now that you have eigenfunctions, coming from the drawing of the disk or square [triangle, etc.]. If you look at a point and you look at the eigenfunction, you can look at the value of the eigenfunction at this point.... The point [zero in space] makes a chord between two notes. When the value of the two eigenfunctions [2, 3, infinity] will be non-zero. ...The corresponding eigenfunctions only leave you one of the two pieces; so if there is is one in the piece, it is zero on the other piece and if it is non-zero in the piece it is zero there...You understand the finite invariant which is behind the scenes which is allowing you to recover the geometry from the spectrum....Our notion of point will emerge, a correlation of different frequencies...The space will be given by the scale. The music of the space will be done by the various chords. It's not enough to give the scale. You also have to give which chords are possible....The only thing that matters when you have these sequences are the ratios, the ear is only sensitive to the ratio, not to the additivity...multiplication by 2 of the frequency and transposition, normally the simplest way is multiplication by 3...2 to the power of 19 is almost 3 to the power of 12....You see what we are after....it should be a shape, it's spectrum looks like that...We can draw this spectrum...what do you get? It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a straight line. It goes up exponentially fast...What is the dimension of this space?...It's much much smaller. It's zero...It's smaller than any positive.... Musical shape has geometric dimension zero... You think you are in bad shape because all the shapes we know ...but this is ignoring the noncommutative work. This is ignoring quantum groups. There is a beautiful answer to that, which is the quantum sphere... .There is a quantum sphere with a geometric dimension of zero...I have made a keyboard [from the quantum sphere]....This would be a musical instrument that would never get out of tune....It's purely spectral....The spectrum of the Dirac Operator...space is not simply a manifold but multiplied by a noncommutative finite space......It is precisely the irrationality of log(3)/ log(2) which is responsible for the noncommutative [complementary opposites as yin/yang] nature of the quotient corresponding to the three places {2, 3,∞}.  The formula is in sub-space....Geometry would no longer be dependent on coordinates, it would be spectral...The thing which is very unpleasant in this formula is the square root...especially for space with a meter....So there is a solution to this problem of the square root, which was found by Paul Dirac....It's not really Paul Dirac, it is Hamilton who found it first...the quaternions is the Dirac Operator....Replace the geometric space, by the algebra and the line element...for physicists this thing has a meaning, a propagator for the Dirac Operator. So it's the inverse of the Dirac Operator.... You don't lose anything. You can recover the distance from two points, in a different manner....but by sending a wave from point A to point B with a constraint on the vibration of the wave, can not vibrate faster than 1; because what I ask is the commutator of the Dirac Operator is less than 1...It no longer requires that the space is connected, it works for discrete space. It no longer requires that the space is commutative, because it works for noncommutative space....the algebra of coordinates depends very little on the actual structure and the line element is very important. What's really important is there interaction [the noncommutative chord]. When you let them interact in the same space then everything happens....You should never think of this finite space as being a commutative space. You have matrices which are given by a noncommutative space...To have a geometry you need to have an inverse space and a Dirac Operator...The inverse space of the finite space is 5 dimensional....What emerges is finite space...it's related to mathematics and related to the fact that there is behind the scene, when I talk about the Dirac Operator, there is a square root, and this square root, when you take a square root there is an ambiguity. And the ambiguity that is there is coming from the spin structure.... We get this formula by counting the number of the variables of the line element that are bigger than the Planck Length. We just count and get an integer....  There is a fine structure in spacetime, exactly as there is a fine structure in spectrals [frequencies]....Geometry is born in quantum space; it is invariant because it is observer dependent....Our brain is an incredible ...perceives things in momentum space of the photons we receive and manufactures a mental picture. Which is geometric. But what I am telling you is that I think ...that the fundamental thing is spectral [frequency]....And somehow in order to think we have to do this enormous Fourier Transform...not for functions but a Fourier Transform on geometry. By talking about the "music of shapes" is really a fourier transform of shape and the fact that we have to do it in reverse. This is a function that the brain does amazingly well, because we think geometrically....The quantum observables do no commute; the phase space of a microscopic system is actually a noncommutative space and that is what is behind the scenes all the time. They way I understand it is that some physical laws are so robust, is that if I understand it correctly, there is a marvelous mathematical structure that is underneath the law, not a value of a number, but a mathematical structure....A fascinating aspect of music...is that it allows one to develop further one's perception of the passing of time. This needs to be understood much better. Why is time passing? Or better: Why do we have the impression that time is passes? Because we are immersed in the heat bath of the 3K radiation from the Big Bang?...time emerges from noncommutativity....What about the relation with music? One finds quickly that music is best based on the scale (spectrum) which consists of all positive integer powers qn for the real number q=2 to the 12th∼3 to the 19th. Due to the exponential growth of this spectrum, it cannot correspond to a familiar shape but to an object of dimension less than any strictly positive number. As explained in the talk, there is a beautiful space which has the correct spectrum: the quantum sphere of Poddles, Dabrowski, Sitarz, Brain, Landi et all. ...  We experiment in the talk with this spectrum and show how well suited it is for playing music. The new geometry  which encodes such new spaces, is then introduced in its spectral form, it is noncommutative geometry, which is then confronted with physics. 

  Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes,

This isn't "remedial" pop science vids - it's a Fields Medal math professor vid.

 

Thi

[voidisyinyang]

Quote

imaginary number x Planck's Constant as h-bar [ h divided by 2π,]....a comparable commutator between energy [frequency] and time... [change in]energy x [change in]time = 1/2 h-bar [half of the quantum phase space is quantum spin, which cannot be put in a Poisson bracket].

 

A Proof for Poisson Bracket in Non-commutative Algebra of Quantum Mechanics by Sina Khorasani, University of Vienna, 2014 pdf

http://ecoechoinvasives.blogspot.com/2018/01/lawrnence-domash-former-professor-where.html

  Quote

...superconductivity within one neuron could become phase coherent with that in an adjoining cell by virtue of quantum tunnelling, and this could be stimulated by the macroscopic analog of stimulated emission (alluded to before in connection with the mantra), that is an AC Josephson effect. ...At a more interesting level, the quantum vacuum state may be said to be empty (of excitation) and yet full in the sense of pure potentiality; it contains "virtual" (unphysical) representatives of all possible modes of matter and excitation in the form of vacuum fluctuations or "virtual particles" (zero-point excitations of each field mode, assigned one-half quanta of energy, due directly to the non-commutative property of the field operators).

So listening is proven to be on the "sub-angstrom" wavelength, when in a quiet room - we can hear wavelengths smaller than the diameter of an atom. So this is logical inference as noncommutative phase.

 

[wandelaar]

@ ViYY

 

Still playing your games:

 

- Quoting out of context.

- Bragging about supposed relations with famous scientists.

- Misusing advanced scientific jargon to scare off possible critics.

- Writing or rather haphazardly pasting together huge incomprehensible posts to intimidate the reader.

- Not answering simple questions aimed at clarifying your position.

- Systematically ignoring the subjects of the topics you are posting in.

[voidisyinyang]

11 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ ViYY

 

Still playing your games:

 

- Quoting out of context.

- Bragging about supposed relations with famous scientists.

- Misusing advanced scientific jargon to scare off possible critics.

- Writing or rather haphazardly pasting together huge incomprehensible posts to intimidate the reader.

- Not answering simple questions aimed at clarifying your position.

- Systematically ignoring the subjects of the topics you are posting in.

 I thought you "self-censored" me?

You've created a list of ad hominems, none of which engage with the content of the information I posted from math professors.

But there are other people reading this website - so you can't try to censor their ability to read the information from math professor Louis Kauffman. haha. Or Eddie Oshins - both of whom worked at SLAC. Do you really think the STanford Linear Accelerator Center is "playing games"?

As I explained - I discovered the secret of Daoist logic from music theory - in high school. I rejected the Pythagorean theorem in 10th grade since from my music theory training I knew the logic was wrong. I then took quantum mechanics my first year of colllege - and so I learned about entanglement and nonlocality and noncommutative phase logic. I also studied the Tao Te Ching and Gregory Bateson's book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity." He discusses logical paradoxes - specifically how Western logic lacks a sense of time, thereby creating the paradoxes. So this is what Louis Kauffman is addressing. The issue of time as a supposed outside parameter in physics is the key issue here regarding "what is truth?" Lee Smolin who also took his first quantum mechanics class from the same professor I studied from, Herbert J. Bernstein, now focuses on this issue of time in Western physics.

So Alain Connes emphasizes this same truth - that time has to be included as the parameter and that the foundation of reality is based on frequency and time - as noncommutative logic. So noncommutative phase creates spacetime - the noncommutative phase is the 5th dimension. Astrophysics professor Paul S. Wesson figured this out as well - from studying Louis de Broglie.

 

So there is a new discipline in science - noncommutative geometry - and so here are various scientists who have figured this out:

 

Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (I've corresponded with Hameroff).

Basil Hiley (I've corresponded with him)

Lawrence Domash (taught at Hampshire College where I attended my first year and took quantum mechanics).

Herbert J. Bernstein (my quantum physics professor).

Alain Connes (focuses on how music is noncommutative phase logic - just as I also figured out).

Eddie Oshins (worked at Stanford Linear Accelerator  Center and taught Daoist Wing Chun - realized the secret of Neigong was noncommmutative phase logic).

Math professor Louis Kauffman (worked with Eddie Oshins at SLAC, and I've corresponded with him).

 

So as I stated - there were a couple Chinese electrical engineers claiming you didn't need noncommutative phase logic to understand complex numbers. I sent this research to Louis Kauffman and asked him what he thought - since that is the focus of his research. He said he would publish a response. So then you posted your "complex numbers" thread and so that inspired me to check up on Kauffman's research. I discovered he indeed had published his response. So I posted it here.

 

It's all pretty straight forward. I've been researching this issue since the late 80s when I did private music training with a former University of Minnesota music professor - while I was in high school. So I tested into third eye music theory level at Hampshire College. It's a small private college based on the Oxford tutorial system - or like Cambridge. So i could have graduated early but instead I wanted a more radical populist education. So I transferred into UW-Madison after living in the wilderness and working in Alaska for 6 months.

 

So I continued my music research - but again I was connecting it to philosophy of science. This became a "monograph" in 1996 called the Fundamental Force - after I experienced qigong master Effie P. Chow.

 

Wandelaar - have you yet sought out and experienced the energy of a qigong master? Why don't you just do so. This is a great way to "test" your model of truth. haha. In China - as I quoted - after the qigong revolution - they realized that there had to be a revolution in science to explain qigong - something that unified and went beyond just quantum and relativity physics. Qigong master Yan Xin calls it a "virtual information field" that does the healing. Qigong master Zhang Hongbao calls it a "superluminal" yin matter as the "golden key." Qigong master Chunyi Lin whom I studied with directly said he read the book the Holographic Universe and that it accurately portrays what a qigong master experiences.

 

Michael Talbot's popular book The HOlographic Universe was based on Karl Pribram and the collaborator of Einstein and Basil J. Hiley - David Bohm. But as Eddie Oshins points out - Pribram did not  understand the noncommutative phase logic. Oshins tried to explain it to Pribram but Oshins had to leave Pribram since Pribram could not understand it. In fact Oshins was pissed that his "quantum psychology" field got co-opted by the New Age Freemason types who are indoctrinated into symmetric logistic equations.

 

So this really is about different worldviews - the Western worldview goes back to Plato and is based on symmetric math. I have also corresponded with math professor Ian Stewart, author of "Why Beauty is Truth: A HIstory of Symmetry."

 

So there you go - Truth - right in the title! He surveys the whole of Western mathematical logic as based on symmetric logic. Only problem is that it is not! The Pre-Socratic logic was noncommutative (just as Daoist logic is noncommutative) and the relativistic quantum logic is noncommutative.

 

Western math originates from music theory - as math professor Luigi Borzacchini has detailed. I first corresonded with Borzacchini in 2000. I mailed him a music math equation that I had scribbled down after a dream. He responded - in snail mail - from Italy - yes my math was good but I had no historical proof that it had been used. Fair enough. So we continued corresponding over the years - a few times. But he is retired now.

 

So some human cultures do not even count past "several" - WEstern mathematics is an artificial construct that ignores the vast ecological destruction from "entropy." So when math professor Joe Mazur published his "Euclid in the Rainforest" book - back around 2000 - I also contacted him, explaining I had studied conservation biology in Costa Rica, where the book takes place, and I did not think Western math was saving the rainforest, but rather destroying it. Professor Mazur's brother is a famous "number theory" math professor - Barry Mazur. Anyway I mentioned my music-math research. Mazur asked me to follow up on a lead that I had mentioned - David Fowler. Sure enough I discovered David Fowler's math book stating that music theory should be able to solve the mystery of how continued proportions were converted into incommensurability - or irrational magnitude real numbers. So this is then exactly what Professor Borzacchini had researched and he discussed this issue with Fowler - in an online math forum.

 

So then math professor Mazur asked me to submit my research for publication because he said he thought it was very important. I mentioned quantum physics and I was challenging the whole "symmetric logic" paradigm of Western math, from the perspective of music theory - so of course my article was rejected without comment. Now Professor Emeritus Mazur is having a new book published on the perception of time and the logical paradoxes of time. So he told me he was going to include a chapter on music perception. I asked him to include precognition as well since I know precognition is real. So I will now look to see if his book got published.

https://www.bgagency.it/images/pdf/editoria-anglosassone/en-2017-agenzie-rights-list-andrew-stuart-literary-agency-frankfurt.pdf

Yes - it is 2018 - so should be out soon - called Zeno's Quiver - and the description is in that pdf.

I copied it to my blog.

http://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/09/no-really-complex-numbers-are-from.html

No really... Complex numbers are from noncommutative phase logic, as is Reality

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by voidisyinyang