Hi Mark [Exacto mentioned]--
[Previously]:
My formula is simply relying on what I have read in this forum.
Yes, there can be a fundamental disagreement on the premise.
This would of course immediately make such an approach
meaningless. If we do not agree on the assumptions then we go
nowhere. The words that you use to describe Ultimate Reality
within your system of thought also breaks it up into components.
The purpose of the components is to provide further understanding.
It is saying that the concept of Ultimate Reality can also be
described as such and such. Such descriptive sentences are
equations in themselves. The formula that I provide is simply
a theory. By subjecting the theory to mathematical analysis,
we can prove or disprove it. If nothing else, it leads to other ideas.
Your persistence and enthusiasm have won me over, Mark. I'm still convinced
that our knowledge of reality can't be extended by mixing science with
religion (or philosophy), and I'm not sure how Horse will react to this
novel analysis of the MoQ. However, inasmuch as you are willing to apply
symbolic logic in the attempt, I'll humor your efforts and do my best to
filter out any false conclusions as I see them. (I recall having a similar
exchange with Ron [Xacto] a couple of years ago. It went nowhere; but since
Ron probably has more familiarity with logical equations than either of us,
I'd feel more comfortable if he were the principal "logician" for this
project.)
The intent was to segregate the subject to allow those who found
the notion to be somewhat sacrilegious to skip the subject. As I
stated then, this is just an off-road adventure. What I had suggested
was that in order to understand my inspiration for the subject you
read (or reread) the essay by Dobson: The Equations of Maya:
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
Coupling the knowledge of Religion with that of Science is a topical
subject. Posts on this forum try to do it.
Yes, I received your previous post and reviewed the Maya page you
referenced. Here is a seminal quote from Dobson's essay:
"Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that the Universe is the
Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha,
nimitta). He said that time, space, and causation are like the glass
through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side,
It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's
the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand
why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."
It appears that the Swami had equated the ("apparitional"?) Universe with
Reality prior to
analyzing its relational principles, which is the basis for my skepticism.
Nonetheless, it's at least conceivable that establishing logical equivalents
can help clarify some of the concepts posited for the MoQ as well as for
Essentialism. If so, it may be worth pursuing toward that end alone.
So, Mark, you've got a reluctant 'critiquer' to monitor the metaphysical
side, and (if Ron is amenable, as I anticipate he will be) a symbolic
wordsmith as coach for the logic side. It's up to you to decide what
postulates are worth formulating as equations (constants?) and what
conclusions you feel can be drawn from the results. Please keep me informed
on your progress and any difficulties you encounter along the way.
Cheers and good luck with this project!
--Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
