The Metaphysical Papers

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:35 am

WanderingLands wrote:So the idea that "numerology" is just "patterns without casual meaning" is just complete nonsense, because mathematics is found in everything that's orderly.
/facepalm

Mathematics is not the same as numerology. And vice versa. Mathematics is the study of patterns of patterns... in the sense that it's not just about patterns... not patterns you find out there in the real world, but how those patterns are in turn patterned in the way of our thoughts.

3 apples is a pattern. The pattern of that pattern is the act of counting, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The logic going on in your brain (in this case algebra plays a significant role). Numerology sees patterns and think they have meaning, including shallow looks at mathematics thinking those patterns have special meaning attached to the outside world. But they only have meaning within their environment, which is the logic rule system in the case of mathematics. Take it outside the environment, like numerology does by blending numbers with all kinds of stuff, and it stops having meaning (take for instance somebody who reads bird signs and says that 6 geez heading north means it'll be a hot summer... now, besides the total lack accuracy... let's entertain it was a full-fledged study. What is lacking is an environment in which this can be true, a set of rules which describes why this is true and which can predict other truths from it... the rules would explain the causal nature, and that's why in turn numerology does not have any meaningful causal nature to it).

What must be understood is that in the case of for instance physics and the mathematics used there... the mathematics in physics works because you extract only the patterns of the real world, that is, the numbers, and then you divorce it from its place in physics and treat it purely as maths, no longer connected with physics. THEN you can play around with it inside the mathematical environment. You cannot keep the link however, because then you pollute mathematics and you get pseudo-mathematics (or numerology, in your context you can speak of those two terms interchangeably). The same way goes the other way, you can take a number, extract it from mathematics, and give it to physics, and say to physics "do something with this", and physics finds a place for it (an assigned value to a property for instance, like momentum), but you can't keep the link! Truths in mathematics are not truths in physics! Extracting an important number from an equation usually leaves the number completely unimportant to physics, because it's just a random thing, it's not part of the same environment, the importance of the number is not transferred, only the pure fact of being a number remains (in an assignment to a random property in physics), in that case, you'd need physics to figure out what the number means, and in the case of momentum, a very large number, coupled with physics providing a medium sized physical object and a measurement unit that doesn't require a big number for big effect, would lead to a huge visible effect. However, take a huge object, and suddenly it seems totally normal or even abnormally low effect...

Summarizing to the fact that in mathematics... mathematics decides the importance of any number. In physics... physics decides the importance of any number... you can't combine them without totally switching from the one to the other, completely divorcing the reference each time you switch it, and then totally committing again to the new environment...

Damn, I should've written this explanation out to a philosophical journal x) I'm pretty good.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:52 am

WanderingLands wrote:those in the more Metaphysical and Holistic viewpoint.
Metaphysics is the study of what exists, and it's a perfectly good philosophical field of study, the problem is when you get speculants who just wastes everybody's time by conjuring up things that has no reason to be considered as existing. This in my experience usually stems from a lack of social skills: namely language skills. Unable to reason with others or yourself your mind starts decaying into fantasies and you get a form of language that stops referencing real world things and instead starts talking about things that does not really exist in any reasonable way. The person confuse themselves and everyone else and only stubbornness keeps them going.

Holism is a perfectly good philosophical concept and idea. Saying that things works as wholes instead of parts is valuable insight, as people who are too focused on parts can't see the whole they are making, but also the other way around, people who are too holistic can't see the mistakes they are making, because they've forgotten the way things works, they can complain about the whole but not see the parts that needs fixing to generate a better whole. I think it's both valuable and depraving to have a purely holistic viewpoint.

As for your critique of academic philosophy I like to say that there is no such thing as academic philosophy... there's only a history of philosophy and its detectives. Real philosophy is done by people with a gifted nose for problems that needs solving and which are found in hierarchy of questions growing out of the philosophical disciplines (ethics, metaphysics, logic, epistemology, and so forth).

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by WanderingLands » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:57 pm

The Voice of Time wrote: Metaphysics is the study of what exists, and it's a perfectly good philosophical field of study, the problem is when you get speculants who just wastes everybody's time by conjuring up things that has no reason to be considered as existing. This in my experience usually stems from a lack of social skills: namely language skills. Unable to reason with others or yourself your mind starts decaying into fantasies and you get a form of language that stops referencing real world things and instead starts talking about things that does not really exist in any reasonable way. The person confuse themselves and everyone else and only stubbornness keeps them going.
My friend, people who study into much deeper metaphysics aren't really the most extrovert, that is, in a historical sense. People who look into deeper metaphysics (ie. mystics, occultists) had to often keep themselves introverted because of the fear of persecution by the authority figures and by the people who follow and obey them. Reasoning with one's mind means to make sense of things, and that is what I am doing regarding a possible reality that may exist outside of us (ie. divinity).

Now stubbornness. The reason why people tend to be stubborn when looking at other things are because they often are back-lashed at people, who never undertaken that route and instead just listened to the accepted philosophical and scientific teachings. Stubbornness means to not accept the mainstream teachings and look for something more profound than that. Now stubbornness can be bad, at times (ie. frustration); however, that does not stop real seekers from actually seeking.
The Voice of Time wrote: Holism is a perfectly good philosophical concept and idea. Saying that things works as wholes instead of parts is valuable insight, as people who are too focused on parts can't see the whole they are making, but also the other way around, people who are too holistic can't see the mistakes they are making, because they've forgotten the way things works, they can complain about the whole but not see the parts that needs fixing to generate a better whole. I think it's both valuable and depraving to have a purely holistic viewpoint.
I agree with what you said here.
The Voice of Time wrote: As for your critique of academic philosophy I like to say that there is no such thing as academic philosophy... there's only a history of philosophy and its detectives. Real philosophy is done by people with a gifted nose for problems that needs solving and which are found in hierarchy of questions growing out of the philosophical disciplines (ethics, metaphysics, logic, epistemology, and so forth).
I didn't say anything about "academic philosophy", nor did I say those words. I am talking about philosophy, science, history, etc. being taught within the realms of academia, which is mainly, in terms of science and philosophy, taught from a Newtonian and materialist perspective.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by WanderingLands » Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:21 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
/facepalm

Mathematics is not the same as numerology. And vice versa. Mathematics is the study of patterns of patterns... in the sense that it's not just about patterns... not patterns you find out there in the real world, but how those patterns are in turn patterned in the way of our thoughts.

3 apples is a pattern. The pattern of that pattern is the act of counting, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The logic going on in your brain (in this case algebra plays a significant role). Numerology sees patterns and think they have meaning, including shallow looks at mathematics thinking those patterns have special meaning attached to the outside world. But they only have meaning within their environment, which is the logic rule system in the case of mathematics. Take it outside the environment, like numerology does by blending numbers with all kinds of stuff, and it stops having meaning (take for instance somebody who reads bird signs and says that 6 geez heading north means it'll be a hot summer... now, besides the total lack accuracy... let's entertain it was a full-fledged study. What is lacking is an environment in which this can be true, a set of rules which describes why this is true and which can predict other truths from it... the rules would explain the causal nature, and that's why in turn numerology does not have any meaningful causal nature to it).

What must be understood is that in the case of for instance physics and the mathematics used there... the mathematics in physics works because you extract only the patterns of the real world, that is, the numbers, and then you divorce it from its place in physics and treat it purely as maths, no longer connected with physics. THEN you can play around with it inside the mathematical environment. You cannot keep the link however, because then you pollute mathematics and you get pseudo-mathematics (or numerology, in your context you can speak of those two terms interchangeably). The same way goes the other way, you can take a number, extract it from mathematics, and give it to physics, and say to physics "do something with this", and physics finds a place for it (an assigned value to a property for instance, like momentum), but you can't keep the link! Truths in mathematics are not truths in physics! Extracting an important number from an equation usually leaves the number completely unimportant to physics, because it's just a random thing, it's not part of the same environment, the importance of the number is not transferred, only the pure fact of being a number remains (in an assignment to a random property in physics), in that case, you'd need physics to figure out what the number means, and in the case of momentum, a very large number, coupled with physics providing a medium sized physical object and a measurement unit that doesn't require a big number for big effect, would lead to a huge visible effect. However, take a huge object, and suddenly it seems totally normal or even abnormally low effect...

Summarizing to the fact that in mathematics... mathematics decides the importance of any number. In physics... physics decides the importance of any number... you can't combine them without totally switching from the one to the other, completely divorcing the reference each time you switch it, and then totally committing again to the new environment...

Damn, I should've written this explanation out to a philosophical journal x) I'm pretty good.
I do not think that numerology in any way is useless patterns, or just prescribing random meanings to the numbers. Here are some examples that I will show you.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = 1
12 = 1 + 2 = 3
13 = 1 + 3 = 4
14 = 1 + 4 = 5
15 = 1 + 5 = 6
16 = 1 + 6 = 7
17 = 1 + 7 = 8
18 = 1 + 8 = 9
19 = 1 + 9 = 10 = 1

... and so on.

Notice how the double-digit numbers can be reduced to the same single-digit numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0), using the numerological "doubling" (adding the numbers within the numbers). As I have said, there are mathematical patterns within the structures of all orderly things, as demonstrated here when looking at these patterns. The reason why there are patterns, in let's say architecture, is because we are subconsciously (and/or unconsciously) attracted to them. So the reason why we should explore the reason for patterns is simple: because it occurs within possibly all levels of consciousness/unconsciousness.

By the way, before you start repeating that my work is just "mere numerology", let me say that I am just trying to connect esoteric disciplines with some accepted mathematical proofs. Your repeating of the word "numerology" tells me that you hardly know anything of what I'm talking about.

Now let's get into the prescribed meanings of such particular numbers. In the Bible, for example, there are certain numbers that repeatedly pop up in many of the books and writings of said book (such as: 40, 7, 666, 12, 24, 6, 10, 4, etc) that are prescribed with meanings. As I will get deeper into these findings, and as I post them here under the banner "The Metaphysical Papers", we will see that these numbers have a meaning prescribed to those numbers. The reason why meanings are prescribed to certain numbers, the way I'm exploring it, is because of how its structured in the mathematical and geometrical patterns that we often see. I have still yet to explore much deeply into this, and so it will come when I continually use mathematics and read more on the occult and spirituality to connect it all.

ADDENDUM

Let's further explore what you've said.
The Voice of Time wrote: Mathematics is not the same as numerology. And vice versa. Mathematics is the study of patterns of patterns... in the sense that it's not just about patterns... not patterns you find out there in the real world, but how those patterns are in turn patterned in the way of our thoughts.
The thoughts that are made up in our heads can often be archetypes, and when used properly with instinct, can actually predict the future. Thoughts are at times separated from reality, but it can be connected with reality when tuned with synchronicity.
The Voice of Time wrote: 3 apples is a pattern. The pattern of that pattern is the act of counting, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The logic going on in your brain (in this case algebra plays a significant role). Numerology sees patterns and think they have meaning, including shallow looks at mathematics thinking those patterns have special meaning attached to the outside world. But they only have meaning within their environment, which is the logic rule system in the case of mathematics. Take it outside the environment, like numerology does by blending numbers with all kinds of stuff, and it stops having meaning (take for instance somebody who reads bird signs and says that 6 geez heading north means it'll be a hot summer... now, besides the total lack accuracy... let's entertain it was a full-fledged study. What is lacking is an environment in which this can be true, a set of rules which describes why this is true and which can predict other truths from it... the rules would explain the causal nature, and that's why in turn numerology does not have any meaningful causal nature to it).
I am getting the idea that you are mainly an empiricist, who thinks that this reality that we live in is the only true reality. Mathematics, which is limitless and has infinite and still undiscovered boundaries, may say different, which is why I, and many others before me, are exploring it. Mathematics is a lot like exploring the infinite levels of consciousness (or unconsciousness), and to this day, because of the current state of academia being influenced by Newtonian principles and full-blown materialism, mathematics and the brain have yet to be completely explored. This is pretty much the reason why I'm here at this forum; to bring something truly profound to the table, and for people who maybe seek into this path (and explore beyond what I'm doing), as well.
The Voice of Time wrote: What must be understood is that in the case of for instance physics and the mathematics used there... the mathematics in physics works because you extract only the patterns of the real world, that is, the numbers, and then you divorce it from its place in physics and treat it purely as maths, no longer connected with physics. THEN you can play around with it inside the mathematical environment. You cannot keep the link however, because then you pollute mathematics and you get pseudo-mathematics (or numerology, in your context you can speak of those two terms interchangeably). The same way goes the other way, you can take a number, extract it from mathematics, and give it to physics, and say to physics "do something with this", and physics finds a place for it (an assigned value to a property for instance, like momentum), but you can't keep the link! Truths in mathematics are not truths in physics! Extracting an important number from an equation usually leaves the number completely unimportant to physics, because it's just a random thing, it's not part of the same environment, the importance of the number is not transferred, only the pure fact of being a number remains (in an assignment to a random property in physics), in that case, you'd need physics to figure out what the number means, and in the case of momentum, a very large number, coupled with physics providing a medium sized physical object and a measurement unit that doesn't require a big number for big effect, would lead to a huge visible effect. However, take a huge object, and suddenly it seems totally normal or even abnormally low effect...
I am not trying to put things in a separate context; I am trying to connect Philosophy, Mysticism/Occultism, Physics, etc. to bring about truth. Saying that truths in mathematics are not true in physics would mean that we would have to take out one or the other; however, both of these disciplines are there, so let's not separate the two.

As I have said, numbers and mathematical structures are present in all orderly patterns. If there's something that seems to be unlimited, as in the study of mathematics, then maybe we should explore it more and try to connect with physics. If some of the equations in mathematics does not work in physics, then maybe we should test physics from a different perspective (ie. question and put to the test the Newtonian physics that has, and continues to shape the scientific and academic world).

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:38 am

WanderingLands wrote:... (ie. question and put to the test the Newtonian physics that has, and continues to shape the scientific and academic world).
What do you mean by this? As Newton was pretty much a barking mad biblical metaphysician.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by WanderingLands » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:59 am

Arising_uk wrote:What do you mean by this? As Newton was pretty much a barking mad biblical metaphysician.
I believe if you were to watch some of Gary Geck's videos (ie. this one below), you'll maybe get an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8fA0Z2cRE

This video on Newton and Leibniz quotes books from authors, regarding Newton (and Leibniz), and how Newton was against Leibniz, not only in the field of calculus, but in the way of how esoteric metaphysics and science was to be brought and presented.

However, I would not just look at the video. The person who make the video, Gary Geck, has a website, and has books where you can check out (however, they are expensive due to being scholarly work).

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:16 am

WanderingLands wrote:and how Newton was against Leibniz, not only in the field of calculus, but in the way of how esoteric metaphysics and science was to be brought and presented.
Make a thread about Leibniz's esoteric metaphysics and science. I'd like to hear about that, it's not exactly the kind of guy I would expect to delve into such stuff.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by WanderingLands » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:20 am

The Voice of Time wrote:Make a thread about Leibniz's esoteric metaphysics and science. I'd like to hear about that, it's not exactly the kind of guy I would expect to delve into such stuff.
Any reasons why you wouldn't think that Leibniz would be into the occult?

Anyways, why would I need to make a thread about that, when maybe you can search for yourself? I will give you some links, which will include that Gary Geck website whom I mentioned to another fellow commenting about Isaac Newton.

Gary Geck website: http://garygeck.com/
Leibniz, Science and Theosophy: http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2013 ... sophy.html

Here's one of Leibniz's works, the Monadology. If you were to read it and then compare it to some beliefs of the Neoplatonists/Platonist/Pythagoreans, you would see that he may have more than likely seemed to have been influenced by these guys.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... eibniz.htm

John K
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: Gruithuisen's Lunar City.

Re: The Metaphysical Papers

Post by John K » Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:27 am

WanderingLands wrote: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = 1
12 = 1 + 2 = 3
13 = 1 + 3 = 4
14 = 1 + 4 = 5
15 = 1 + 5 = 6
16 = 1 + 6 = 7
17 = 1 + 7 = 8
18 = 1 + 8 = 9
19 = 1 + 9 = 10 = 1
Fibonacci numbers gone mad?

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

The Metaphysical Papers: My Simple Mathematical Cosmology

Post by WanderingLands » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:25 am

In continuing on with my findings on the metaphysical and esoteric, through my research on the occult as well as my intuitional mind putting pieces together, I will show you my Mathematical cosmology.

1, 2, 3 - the dominant Tri-Monad; Trinity; whatever name that has been put on these three simple numbers by various religions. 4 is the number of Time and Earth.

Here's the formula for the Pythagorean Tetractys: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10. 10 is the totality - complete existence. I believe when I kick started posting "The Metaphysical Papers" series that I talked about the cycle of 0 = 1 = 0 (0 + 1 = 1 - 1 = 0). 1 is everything; 0 is nothing. In the occult, mainly looking at Albert Pike's book Morals and Dogma, and/or if you were to look into some occult basics on the Internet, you might possibly come across a website that talks about "Sacred Sex". Sex is mainly meant to be spiritual and metaphysical, as it reproduces new life and thus continues the "Great Work", as the Alchemists call it.

Alight, I believe I have already explained to you this:

3/3 = 1
6/3 = 2
9/3 = 3

The "333" is the number of Choronzon, or the Abyss, according to Aleister Crowley's Thelema system. "Choronzon", first conceived of by occultists John Dee and Edward Kelly, was first perceived as a demon. In Thelema, Choronzon, or the Abyss, was the obstacle between materialism and spirituality. Here's some information for you guys to learn about.

Choronzon - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choronzon
Choronzon - Bibilioteca Pleyades: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... real19.htm

So 1-2-3-4, when multiplied by 3, becomes: 3, 6, 9, 12. The 1-2-3-4 code represents the four forces of nature and life; it is manifested by the Cross (Christianity), the Swastika (Buddhism, Jainism, Nazi Mysticism), and the Black Sun (Germanic Paganism and Nazi Mysticism). The Black Sun, otherwise known as the Schwarze Sonne, has 12 rays, if you were to count the rays in that symbol. The Black Sun will be demonstrated here as of the modal symbol(s) of creation.

Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne) - Symbol Dictionary: http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1494

The next part that I will get into is the planetary realm of this physical existence that we live on. If you want to know where I got the information from, please check out this link below.

Astrological Yantras - Prophet666: http://www.prophet666.com/2012/01/astro ... ntras.html

15 = Sun
18 = Moon
21 = Mars/Saturn
24 = Mercury
27 = Jupiter
30 = Venus
33 = Saturn
36 = Rahu (33/36/36)
39 = Ketu

Rahu is the imaginary planet north of the moon; Ketu is the imaginary planet south of the moon.

The number of Adverse Planets are: 51/57/65. The Adverse Planets are the dark side(s) of the planet(s).

Any number beyond 39 could be ranging from that of the smaller existences here on earth, to possibly the subconscious/unconscious realms.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: The Metaphysical Papers: My Simple Mathematical Cosmolog

Post by jackles » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:47 am

if no thing or 0 is consciousness then we have the thought of 1 that equals 2 things.0 is the thinker of the thought

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers: My Simple Mathematical Cosmolog

Post by WanderingLands » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:54 am

jackles wrote:if no thing or 0 is consciousness then we have the thought of 1 that equals 2 things.0 is the thinker of the thought
I do not, from experience, know what the number 0 is for sure, for I do not know what's beyond this existence. However, as time goes by, hopefully I maybe will progressively articulate what 0 really means. However, it seems as though you could be right.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

The Metaphysical Papers 3

Post by WanderingLands » Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:52 am

1, 2, 3 are the first three numbers that make up the Monad. The Monad, demonstrated here, is the Triangle, or the All Seeing Eye.

Image

The All Seeing Eye, or the Eye of Providence, is a common symbol found in Buddhism (eye of the World), Hinduism (eye of Shiva), Western Occultism, and most (in)famously, on the back of the U.S $1 Bill (often associated with the 18th century Bavarian Illuminati: an order now considered notorious in the conspiratorial circles). The All Seeing Eye is said to be scientifically known as the Pineal Gland, which is associated with spiritual awakening and enlightenment according to eastern and western esoteric philosophies.

Here are some information on this particular symbol.

Eye of Providence - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence
The Eye in the Pyramid - Tek-Gnostics: http://www.tekgnostics.com/Eye.htm#.UtmvVdIo5-U
All Seeing Eye (Eye of Providence) - Symbol Dictionary: http://symboldictionary.net/?p=2644

The elaboration of the 1-2-3 Monad Code.

1
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

2
2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16-18-20

3
3-6-9-12-15-18-21-24-27-30

As I've discussed in the beginning of the series, The Metaphysical Papers, I talked of how 3-6-9, when divided by 3, is actually 1-2-3. The 3-6-9 is the Lower Reality, the building block of apparently creating or emanating this physical existence that we live in, and the 3 that the 3-6-9 code is divisible by is 3-3-3, aka Choronzon/Abyss. Here are the numbers that emanate from the 3-6-9 Code, applying it with the 1, 2, and 3.

3
3 X 1 = 3
3 X 2 = 6
3 X 3 = 9
3 X 4 = 12
3 X 5 = 15
3 X 6 = 18
3 X 7 = 21
3 X 8 = 24
3 X 9 = 27
3 X 10 = 30

6
6 X 1 = 6
6 X 2 = 12
6 X 3 = 18
6 X 4 = 24
6 X 5 = 30
6 X 6 = 36
6 X 7 = 42
6 X 8 = 48
6 X 9 = 54
6 X 10 = 60

9
9 X 1 = 9
9 X 2 = 18
9 X 3 = 27
9 X 4 = 36
9 X 5 = 45
9 X 6 = 54
9 X 7 = 63
9 X 8 = 72
9 X 9 = 81
9 X 10 = 90

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Metaphysical Papers: My Simple Mathematical Cosmolog

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:20 am

WanderingLands wrote:I do not, from experience, know what the number 0 is for sure, for I do not know what's beyond this existence. However, as time goes by, hopefully I maybe will progressively articulate what 0 really means. However, it seems as though you could be right.
Or maybe its just a useful symbolic invention that acts as a placeholder upon the eye when calculating with numbers? It could even be a symbolic invention that arose when negative numbers were being thought about and when algebra was being thought up. Personally I think this "what 0 really means" is a misunderstanding based upon thinking its a number of some sort. If it wasn't for Algebra we could pretty much do away with it, although it would make calculation a bit more messy upon the eye and in some cases a more complex process.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Papers: My Simple Mathematical Cosmolog

Post by WanderingLands » Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:36 am

Arising_uk wrote:Or maybe its just a useful symbolic invention that acts as a placeholder upon the eye when calculating with numbers? It could even be a symbolic invention that arose when negative numbers were being thought about and when algebra was being thought up. Personally I think this "what 0 really means" is a misunderstanding based upon thinking its a number of some sort. If it wasn't for Algebra we could pretty much do away with it, although it would make calculation a bit more messy upon the eye and in some cases a more complex process.
A lot of things are very complicated and must be explored. However, it seems as though philosophers (and scientists) from many major outlets (schools, universities, forums, etc.) just aren't really that much wanting to go deeper than what philosophical and scientific rules dictate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests