As above so below, as below so above

__THE_HERMIT__

"

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.

Frater SOL

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

__THE_HERMIT__

@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.

Uni_Verse

@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.

__THE_HERMIT__

@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.

Uni_Verse

@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 )

__THE_HERMIT__

@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.

__THE_HERMIT__

@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."

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-L" />
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-L" />
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile-l.gif" alt=":L)" title="Smile-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.

__THE_HERMIT__

@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.

Bellman

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.