As above so below, as below so above
-
@Uni_Verse said
"It is a telescope all right, a telescoping series that is."
I'm sure you would love fractals even better!
-
@Scapegoa said
"
@Aum418 said
"93,I think you are confusing the symbols. Yes, on the physical level we are macroscopic to particles and galaxies to us...
But Microcosm and Macrocosm refer to phenomenological features: ego and non-ego. Self and world. Uniting of Micro and Macrocosm refers to this perceptual union, not something in the objective physical world. The physical world give us symbols to describe this phenomenological reality anyways - we dont mean the Sun and the Moon literally unite, for example.
IAO131"
Aum, you have just given me a major epiphany with your ego/non-ego analogy, however there is obviously in this case a very close relation/analogy between our phenomenological reality and the physical level, even if the relation is less rigid. I mean in my opinion the "TOL" is obviously a crude geometric/2 dimensional model of the Milky Way Galaxy" or in the mind of the ancients "the phenomenal universe", and the various spheres are associated with specific planets;"
I think the main point is that the Tree of Life states there is One Law that guides both the physical and spiritual worlds (if you allow me to speak highly dualistically for a moment), just as Newton's Law showed that the same Law giuides both earthly and celestial objects (gravity). The problem is that Qabalah is based on a medieval, geocentric notion of ourselves at the center of a bunch of spheres of planets. There have been multiple revolutions since then - youd porbably be interested in Dr. Joel Primack's book 'The View from the Center of the Universe' - check it out.
" hence, that being the case, a crude model of say maybe "Space-Time" at or around the "Planck Scale" may provide a mirror of the TOL in different terminology, that is a "Bottom -Up" analogy of the "phenomenal universe" as opposed to a "Top-Down" analogy, ultimately it is tantamount to the same thing, otherwise the dilemma is the same as resolving "general relativity theory" and "quantum theory"."
The problem is that most people dont understand QM and relativity (what about special relativity, hmm?), and also that a lot of people probably dont even have the capacity. QM especially is highly counterintuitive. I dont know if a valid symbolic system could really validly be created to the point where people understand what theyre being told, i.e. what kind of symbolic validity does the Planck Scale have? Everyone can look up and see stars and planets and the sun and moon but the plank scale?
" At least the idea cannot be ruled out by default? Basically we are creating a multidimensional model as opposed to a two-dimensional one, such that TOL is a secondary function of the initial equation or vise-versa, part of a fractal, or maybe more appropriately a simultaneous equation, or both."
To be frank I feel like youre saying a whole lot of nothing. I dont complain that Crowley's symbols are two dimenisonal, who cares - they are symbols. A symbol of a goat refers to a 3 dimensional object, no one would complain that the symbol isnt 3 dimensions for some reason... The TOL can be understood as multidimensional through a 2 dimensional picture but I fear when people start talking about multiple dimensions they have no idea what they really mean and/or are misinterpreting science.
" Moreover the "Planck Scale" lays at the very heart of our scientific understanding of Space-Time, the very phenomenon we seek to apprehend/ transcend, being at this level discrete and not continuous, apparently then, less deterministic and reasonably more susceptible to human influence"
That is an amazingly faulty understanding of physics, my friend. It does not become 'less deterministic.' Wher eyou got that idea, I dont know but it is wrong wrong wrong.
"; this is borderline a metaphysical state, whereas the celestial bodies are least susceptible to human influence. Furthermore there are some readily available models such as "Zenet" the AE "game of Immortality" which traditionally consists of "Nodes" or "Boxes", like Space-Time at the Planck Scale, the consensus is that the nature of connections between these Boxes, is more important than the content at this level(Planck Scale)."
I and I assume many others have no clue what you are talking about.
" In this case the"Unified Field" would be analogous to the "Human Consciousness" wherein the paradox of "Chaos" and "Cosmos" is resolved in Man as both "Microcosm of Cosmos" and "Macrocosm of Chaos". Obviously this is just a theory, maybe a Childish One."
Actually, I think its quite Adult and thats the problem - its highly complex. A Childish theory would rest in Simplicity. I am perfectly fine with accepting the dot within the circle as a valid representation of the Universe. We dont need nodes and space-time and planck scales... especially if you have a pseudo-understanding of them in the first place (which is all we can hope for for 95% of humanity at this time anyways)
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
" At least the idea cannot be ruled out by default? Basically we are creating a multidimensional model as opposed to a two-dimensional one, such that TOL is a secondary function of the initial equation or vise-versa, part of a fractal, or maybe more appropriately a simultaneous equation, or both."To be frank I feel like youre saying a whole lot of nothing. I dont complain that Crowley's symbols are two dimenisonal, who cares - they are symbols. A symbol of a goat refers to a 3 dimensional object, no one would complain that the symbol isnt 3 dimensions for some reason... The TOL can be understood as multidimensional through a 2 dimensional picture but I fear when people start talking about multiple dimensions they have no idea what they really mean and/or are misinterpreting science."
Dimensions have very loose and diverse definitions, instead of stereotyping, try to educate, if you can; The relative change/paradigm shift in scale between the human level of perception and either the quantum scale or cosmic scale is arguably equivalent to a different dimension of Perception/Thought/Nature, so though the TOL be multi-dimensional in application, it still relates to "Man" and "Cosmos" but Man simultaneously bears relation to "Chaos" seen at the quantum level.
"
" Moreover the "Planck Scale" lays at the very heart of our scientific understanding of Space-Time, the very phenomenon we seek to apprehend/ transcend, being at this level discrete and not continuous, apparently then, less deterministic and reasonably more susceptible to human influence"That is an amazingly faulty understanding of physics, my friend. It does not become 'less deterministic.' Wher eyou got that idea, I dont know but it is wrong wrong wrong."
I thought this might be the wrong choice of word after the fact, I might have said the relation between cause and effect is non-linear, or somewhat "Chaotic" if you like. Notwithstanding, Man has hardly any influence over the orbit/rotation of planet earth, let alone other celestial bodies, at the social level of interaction, our individual influence varies, while at the quantum level mere measurement has manifest effects, therefore we see an increase in susceptibility to influence with a decrease in scale. a most notable observation.
"
"; this is borderline a metaphysical state, whereas the celestial bodies are least susceptible to human influence. Furthermore there are some readily available models such as "Zenet" the AE "game of Immortality" which traditionally consists of "Nodes" or "Boxes", like Space-Time at the Planck Scale, the consensus is that the nature of connections between these Boxes, is more important than the content at this level(Planck Scale)."I and I assume many others have no clue what you are talking about."
I'm talking about a cellular network.
"
" In this case the"Unified Field" would be analogous to the "Human Consciousness" wherein the paradox of "Chaos" and "Cosmos" is resolved in Man as both "Microcosm of Cosmos" and "Macrocosm of Chaos". Obviously this is just a theory, maybe a Childish One."Actually, I think its quite Adult and thats the problem - its highly complex. A Childish theory would rest in Simplicity. I am perfectly fine with accepting the dot within the circle as a valid representation of the Universe. We dont need nodes and space-time and planck scales... especially if you have a pseudo-understanding of them in the first place (which is all we can hope for for 95% of humanity at this time anyways)
IAO131"
They say"you can't teach and old dog new tricks";Once again this is your personal bias, a by-product of the self-assurance of one who is very Adult and accomplished in their chosen niche. My weakness is more in presentation and English grammar, rather than understanding, within the limits of personal interpretations. I am a mathematician first, so my tendency is towards speculaion. Further, I do not claim to know all, and I am humble and open minded enough to consider new information/more accurate information without personal bias, my reference to Child-like is in regards to Enthusiasm, and the Spirit of "New Innovation' even in the face of hard nosed cynics like yourself. The Central idea here is resolving the duality of Chaos and Cosmos as the sum total of the experience of Space-Time and "Human Consciousness" as the "Unified Field", now that's pretty simple considering!? I respect both your intelligence and your work but you are very fixed in your views. As to be expected...I strive more for the coming generations! Moreover the technical aspects may be regarded as the "computer language" used to write the "software program" and not the program itself, it would not be presented in quantum terminology but symbolically. obviously it is an ambitious project. Moreover pseudo-understanding is a start in the right direction.finally i think you underestimate 95% of the population.
p.s. thanks for the reference, it looks interesting, very interesting.
-
@Scapegoa said
"
@Aum418 said
"
" At least the idea cannot be ruled out by default? Basically we are creating a multidimensional model as opposed to a two-dimensional one, such that TOL is a secondary function of the initial equation or vise-versa, part of a fractal, or maybe more appropriately a simultaneous equation, or both."To be frank I feel like youre saying a whole lot of nothing. I dont complain that Crowley's symbols are two dimenisonal, who cares - they are symbols. A symbol of a goat refers to a 3 dimensional object, no one would complain that the symbol isnt 3 dimensions for some reason... The TOL can be understood as multidimensional through a 2 dimensional picture but I fear when people start talking about multiple dimensions they have no idea what they really mean and/or are misinterpreting science."
Dimensions have very loose and diverse definitions, instead of stereotyping, try to educate, if you can; The relative change/paradigm shift in scale between the human level of perception and either the quantum scale or cosmic scale is arguably equivalent to a different dimension of Perception/Thought/Nature, so though the TOL be multi-dimensional in application, it still relates to "Man" and "Cosmos" but Man simultaneously bears relation to "Chaos" seen at the quantum level.
"
" Moreover the "Planck Scale" lays at the very heart of our scientific understanding of Space-Time, the very phenomenon we seek to apprehend/ transcend, being at this level discrete and not continuous, apparently then, less deterministic and reasonably more susceptible to human influence"That is an amazingly faulty understanding of physics, my friend. It does not become 'less deterministic.' Wher eyou got that idea, I dont know but it is wrong wrong wrong."
I thought this might be the wrong choice of word after the fact, I might have said the relation between cause and effect is non-linear, or somewhat "Chaotic" if you like. Notwithstanding, Man has hardly any influence over the orbit/rotation of planet earth, let alone other celestial bodies, at the social level of interaction, our individual influence varies, while at the quantum level mere measurement has manifest effects, therefore we see an increase in susceptibility to influence with a decrease in scale. a most notable observation.
"
"; this is borderline a metaphysical state, whereas the celestial bodies are least susceptible to human influence. Furthermore there are some readily available models such as "Zenet" the AE "game of Immortality" which traditionally consists of "Nodes" or "Boxes", like Space-Time at the Planck Scale, the consensus is that the nature of connections between these Boxes, is more important than the content at this level(Planck Scale)."I and I assume many others have no clue what you are talking about."
I'm talking about a cellular network.
"
" In this case the"Unified Field" would be analogous to the "Human Consciousness" wherein the paradox of "Chaos" and "Cosmos" is resolved in Man as both "Microcosm of Cosmos" and "Macrocosm of Chaos". Obviously this is just a theory, maybe a Childish One."Actually, I think its quite Adult and thats the problem - its highly complex. A Childish theory would rest in Simplicity. I am perfectly fine with accepting the dot within the circle as a valid representation of the Universe. We dont need nodes and space-time and planck scales... especially if you have a pseudo-understanding of them in the first place (which is all we can hope for for 95% of humanity at this time anyways)
IAO131"
They say"you can't teach and old dog new tricks";Once again this is your personal bias, a by-product of the self-assurance of one who is very Adult and accomplished in their chosen niche. My weakness is more in presentation and English grammar, rather than understanding, within the limits of personal interpretations. I am a mathematician first, so my tendency is towards speculaion. Further, I do not claim to know all, and I am humble and open minded enough to consider new information/more accurate information without personal bias, my reference to Child-like is in regards to Enthusiasm, and the Spirit of "New Innovation' even in the face of hard nosed cynics like yourself. The Central idea here is resolving the duality of Chaos and Cosmos as the sum total of the experience of Space-Time and "Human Consciousness" as the "Unified Field", now that's pretty simple considering!? I respect both your intelligence and your work but you are very fixed in your views. As to be expected...I strive more for the coming generations! Moreover the technical aspects may be regarded as the "computer language" used to write the "software program" and not the program itself, it would not be presented in quantum terminology but symbolically. obviously it is an ambitious project. Moreover pseudo-understanding is a start in the right direction.finally i think you underestimate 95% of the population.
p.s. thanks for the reference, it looks interesting, very interesting."
Yes, yes, yes - I am an "old dog," a hard-nosed cynic and goddamnit (and why should I learn new tricks when the old ones work so damned well, confoundit, you hooligans, where did I put my prune juice?) but I do give good book suggestions, no? Let me know in a PM or something if you ever get around to reading that book and what you think about it (I knew the guy)
IAO131
-
Hi Scapegoat,
"The Central idea here is resolving the duality of Chaos and Cosmos as the sum total of the experience of Space-Time and "Human Consciousness" as the "Unified Field", now that's pretty simple considering!"
I agree.
Please continue to speculate and draw inferences linking associations from different fields. It is enriching both to you and others.Thanks,
Chris H. -
Thanks for the encouragement Chris, It helps sometimes.
-
My avatar is a fractal
I know a little bit about them, and plan to learn more in the future.
An idea which occured to me is a correlation betwen fractals and the plank scale. Where the universe is arranged in multiples of the plank scale ; while things appear differentiated, they are simply iterations of km, where k is some number and m is the plank scale.
Though I am tempted to classify k as an integer ( but thinking more along the line of natural numbers, with -1 and 1 being the same number when taken in realtion to zero). However an irrational number might be more fitting.
Keep in mind, it is a simple model and not meant to represent any actual relationship.
-
@Aum418 said
"
Yes, yes, yes - I am an "old dog," a hard-nosed cynic and goddamnit (and why should I learn new tricks when the old ones work so damned well, confoundit, you hooligans, where did I put my prune juice?) but I do give good book suggestions, no? Let me know in a PM or something if you ever get around to reading that book and what you think about it (I knew the guy)
IAO131"
Maybe your not so bad after all Aum, I will. Thanks.
-
This same subject is addressed in The Cry of the 5th Æthyr...
@666 said
"And a voice comes: That which is above is not like that which is below.
And another voice answers it: That which is below is not like that which is above.
And a third voice answers these two: What is above and what is below? For there is the division that divideth not, and the multiplication that multiplieth not. And the One is the many."
729
-
@Arsihsis said
"This same subject is addressed in The Cry of the 5th Æthyr...
@666 said
"And a voice comes: That which is above is not like that which is below.
And another voice answers it: That which is below is not like that which is above.
And a third voice answers these two: What is above and what is below? For there is the division that divideth not, and the multiplication that multiplieth not. And the One is the many."
729"
This is interesting; brace yourself folks! here comes more weird speculation!
If we consider Blackhole/Singularity as "Kether", then we have some interesting analogies. Space-Time beaks down as we approach the "event horizon" toward the center of the Galaxy, Space-Time similarly breaks down as we approach the "Planck Scale"; the difference is "Chaos" is centralized amidst almost perfect order in the "Cosmos" as Singularity or X^0 = I(both division and Unity), which may be "the division that divideth not"; whereas at the "Planck Scale" "Chaos" is Universal, and for the sake of presentation may be termed X^infinity = 0(Both infinity and Nothing), or the multiplication that multiplieth not. please note, I use the word "Chaos" here very loosely. -
@Scapegoa said
"
X^0 = I(both division and Unity), which may be "the division that divideth not";
"I always like to keep in mind that all mathematical operations can be reduced to sums. In other words, even division is simply another way to add things together.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Scapegoa said
"
X^0 = I(both division and Unity), which may be "the division that divideth not";
"I always like to keep in mind that all mathematical operations can be reduced to sums. In other words, even division is simply another way to add things together."
Division, in the context of it being multiplication, Yes, otherwise no, division cannot be reduced to sums. sums consolidate the many into one, division breaks the whole into parts, so maybe looking at the operation in reverse, the precondition of the undivided whole is the sum of the post-operation fractions of that whole, so if anything it is more akin to subtraction.
-
@Scapegoa said
"
Division, in the context of it being multiplication, Yes, otherwise no, division cannot be reduced to sums. sums consolidate the many into one, division breaks the whole into parts, so maybe looking at the operation in reverse, the precondition of the undivided whole is the sum of the post-operation fractions of that whole, so if anything it is more akin to subtraction.
"If it can be reduced to subtraction, which is a form of addition, why not straight to addition ?
Consider : 6 - 3 = 6 + (-3)
But, to speak more directly about my earlier comment:
6 divided by 3 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2
Division does break down into small parts, more importantly, the sum of smaller parts. At least, that is how I concieve it.
There, of course, is then the division algorithim (a = qd +r )which can be rewritten as : a = q1 + q2 + q3 + qd + r
( that is, the addition of q number one to q number d ) -
@scapegoa said
"so maybe looking at the operation in reverse, the precondition of the undivided whole is the sum of the post-operation fractions of that whole,
"@Uni_Verse said
"
Division does break down into small parts, more importantly, the sum of smaller parts. At least, that is how I concieve it.
"
we are basically saying the same thing, i can see where u are coming from.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"My avatar is a fractal
I know a little bit about them, and plan to learn more in the future."
Hope you realize you answered your own question..
"Uni_Verse wrote:
It is a telescope all right, a telescoping series that is."<!-- s:L) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-L" /><!-- s:L) -->
<!-- s:L) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-L" /><!-- s:L) -->
<!-- s:L) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-L" /><!-- s:L) -->I was being a bit sarcastic..
..but I guess you knew that anyway!"An idea which occured to me is a correlation betwen fractals and the plank scale. Where the universe is arranged in multiples of the plank scale ; while things appear differentiated, they are simply iterations of km, where k is some number and m is the plank scale.
Though I am tempted to classify k as an integer ( but thinking more along the line of natural numbers, with -1 and 1 being the same number when taken in realtion to zero). However an irrational number might be more fitting.
Keep in mind, it is a simple model and not meant to represent any actual relationship."
On a conceptual level this may be an over-simplification of the Plank-Scale. Space-time at the Planck Scale is Counter-intuitive, it is not a continuum, here geometry becomes a "Machian" or relational concept, where we have non-local connections between cells or "action at a distance". yet in another sense maybe you have something with the transcendental/irrational number idea, like pi ?? I haven't really thought about it in those terms.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"My avatar is a fractal
I know a little bit about them, and plan to learn more in the future.
An idea which occured to me is a correlation betwen fractals and the plank scale. Where the universe is arranged in multiples of the plank scale ; while things appear differentiated, they are simply iterations of km, where k is some number and m is the plank scale.
Though I am tempted to classify k as an integer ( but thinking more along the line of natural numbers, with -1 and 1 being the same number when taken in realtion to zero). However an irrational number might be more fitting.
Keep in mind, it is a simple model and not meant to represent any actual relationship."
After some thinking I believe your concept maybe more fitting to DNA as opposed to quanta, especially with the transcendental/ irrational number component, since DNA involves a Double Helix, conceivable as a spiral, and hence related to the ellipse, and Pi by default. All "Life" on earth is a complex expression of the permutations and combinations of the genetic code, this is a direct relationship understood in classical terms, that does not need understanding of the probabilistic, non-local framework of quantum theory.
-
I haven't read the entire discussion here, but on the subject of quantum mechanics, and microcosm to macrocosm relationships, I would highly recommend reading "The Self Aware Universe" by Dr. Amit Goswami. His proposal is that consciousness is the foundation of the material world. In the book he attempts to reconcile quantum physics, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Once one studies quantum physics, it becomes obvious one can throw away objectivity immediately. The electron is perfect. Neither particle or wave, yet both and above both. (Kind of like the movie underworld
) In essence what I am saying is that just like choosing to view the electron as either particle or wave, you can choose to view yourself as microcosm or macrocosm, or attempt to transcend above both, becoming what the electron is, what you already are.*Have any of you viewed some of the different galaxies from the Hubble telescope? There are some that look identical to the DNA double helix. Granted the colors are based on different elements, but the structure is nearly identical which is more of the so below, so above.-reason 4 edit.