Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism

[AshvinP]

But you rarely keep things at that level of imagery - rather you reference all sorts of mathematicians, complex mathematical terminology, the history of mathematics, etc. and thereby create many layers of concepts that I need to penetrate in order to figure out how you are employing those things and what your underlying point is. Each different concept I am not familiar with requires a Google search, and even then I may not figure out how exactly you are using the concept. That entire tendency is rife within "post-structural" linguistic philosophy, so I am not surprised or saying you are a strange case. In those circles, the hyper-abstract approach is perfectly normal and common.

Oh dear oh dear, what's more "post-modern" than calling mathematics - which has it's complex layering and jargons - "post-modern" linguistic philosophy.

Yet all the time I've been arguing for intuitionist mathematics, meaning idealist ontology which can be experienced intuitively, and against fragmentation of mathematics into post-modern language games of point-reductionism. Sure, to know your enemy you need know the language of the enemy. That does not mean that you agree with the language of the enemy. And by enemy I mean the whole paradigm of formalist school of mathematics, their post-modern and post-truth language games, their atomistic point-reductionism and absurd physicalism based on point-reductionism.

You just aren't getting the point here, pun intended. Just because it is called "intuitionist mathematics" does not automatically mean everyone intuitively knows what it means. In fact, I bet very few people on this forum knows exactly what that is without searching for it and reading up on it for a few days. Can you admit this simple fact? And then can you admit that makes it more abstract for the people who are not yet familiar with it? You frequently use these terms and pretend like their meanings are self-evident but that is not even close to being accurate. Somehow you have managed to abstract away from the simple meaning of "abstraction" here. And if I were you right now, I would accuse, "you are evil colonial imperialist by assuming the us vs. them language of "enemy" is correct language to use... now admit that you are evil so we can move on!" But I am not you, so I don't resort to such silly tactics.

Yet, what could be more simple and elementary mathematical form than 'point'? The concept that Euclid defines in the 1st and 3rd definitions of Elementa? You just offer your usual rhetorical excuses to refuse to discuss, comprehend and know the meaning of 'point'. You have said that to be free, you need to know. If you don't know the meaning of 'point', but are being dragged in and dropping in the Omega point and insisting to drag whole of being with you, how can you be free, not-knowing???

Or if you think you know the meaning of point, let's hear it. Should not be too difficult, to define the meaning of such a simple thing?

I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard. His view is not nihilistic in the slightest. It may only become that way if you misinterpret the "Omega Point" to be some sort of Borg-like mechanization and homogenization of all living activity, which is then only existing in your biased interpretation of him. You made the same sort of argument against Cleric in the other thread, and I know with 100% certainty that his view (also Steiner's view) proposes nothing of the sort. Rather, they all propose that your bolded phrase above, which wants to remain in "mathematical cognition", is entirely insufficient. We need to move towards the living essence of Spirit and mathematical concepts are not that living essence. If we want to get a sense of the Spirit's living essence, we can just reflect on our own living activities and their meaning. And if we want to move further from that sense, we must work on developing higher cognition and spiritual sight. That is what Teilhard is suggesting and we see that in this quote:

You say: Christ is point at distance.. I did not start the geometric discussion, you and Cleric did with your visions and ideas of Teilhard's Omega point, so don't run away with purely abstract distancing of "living essence" into point at distance (by which you seem to mean that you are feeling currently dead inside?). Be a man worthy of your argumentative profession, stop evading when challenged, and defend your geometric argument in honest debate - or honestly admit your defeat to the Jury and renounce the form of Omega point, which stands accused in this court of spiritual and rational investigation.

Seeing. We might say that the whole Omega Point of life lies in that verb - if not ultimately, at least essentially. Fuller being is closer union: such is the kernel and conclusion of this book. But let us emphasize the point: union increases only through an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision. And that, doubtless, is why the history of the living world can be summarized as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen. After all, do we not judge the perfection of an animal, or the supremacy of a thinking being, by the penetration and synthetic power of their gaze? To try to see more and better is not a matter of whim or curiosity or self-indulgence. To see or to perish is the very condition laid upon everything that makes up the universe, by reason of the mysterious gift of existence. And this, in superior measure, is man's condition.

- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (1930)

Thank's... for making the prosecutors case even stronger. Not only more of the reductionist tripe of reducing whole of sentience to the single sense of vision, but also most perfect description of the archetypal Eye of Sauron going: superiority, superiority, superiority...

Why do you assume Teilhard is using "point" in the mathematically precise way you are interpreting it, or not considering the possibility that he maybe failed to anticipate masters of abstraction such as yourself coming along and using this math argument to tear down the spiritual reality he is pointing to with "Omega Point"? All of the above results from your decision to play games with yourself and see how much you can abstract away from who the living human being, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, was and what he was attempting to convey through the living essence of his philosophy-theology, which is that the progression of Spirit now moves from fragmentation towards harmony and we are all offered the opportunity to discern its beauty and goodness in full consciousness if we approach it with humility, good will, and discipline. But you clearly do not approach with any three of the latter, so you take the holistic meaning of his quote and turn it into another Lord of the Rings reference as always, yet again another example of classic SS abstracting away so as to avoid making an actual coherent argument.

[SanteriSatama]

You just aren't getting the point here, pun intended. Just because it is called "intuitionist mathematics" does not automatically mean everyone intuitively knows what it means.

What part of "idealist ontology" did you miss? Obviously, the text did not expect you to automatically know the meaning, but gave the most important meaning for the context of discussion: idealist ontology of mathematics. Can you admit the simple fact that you are just evading by building yet another strawman?

Why do you assume Teilhard is using "point" in the mathematically precise way you are interpreting it, or not considering the possibility that he maybe failed to anticipate masters of abstraction such as yourself coming along and using this math argument to tear down the spiritual reality he is pointing to with "Omega Point"? All of the above results from your decision to play games with yourself and see how much you can abstract away from who the living human being, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, was and what he was attempting to convey through the living essence of his philosophy-theology, which is that the progression of Spirit now moves from fragmentation towards harmony and we are all offered the opportunity to discern its beauty and goodness in full consciousness if we approach it with humility, good will, and discipline. But you clearly do not approach with any three of the latter, so you take the holistic meaning of his quote and turn it into another Lord of the Rings reference as always, yet again another example of classic SS abstracting away so as to avoid making an actual coherent argument.

I don't assume. Teilhard says in his book that he's presenting a scientific theory with scientific precision. According to his own words and instructions how to interprete his theory, he's not speaking in vague mythical metaphors - at least intentionally - but in rational language of science. You're defence that we should not take Teilhard's theory as intended is disrespectful towards your guru, and dishonest.

In the conventional sense, Teilhard is not a living human being, he died in 1955. So most concretely, he did not intend his theory of point-reduction to himself, but all children of Mother Earth.

Or maybe you mean that you are the living incarnation of Teilhard? If so, the question remains: Do you, Teilhard in the body of Ashvin, still hold on to your scientific theory of point-reductionism, or do you now renounce the theory in your book?

The nihilism of point-reductionism is very bad idea of "harmony". As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Dear Ashvin. I'm just a father, a very imperfect one, but I do love my children, and in my fatherly love can feel compassion towards all children and all parents who wish well for their children, childrens children and so on. All children of Mother Earth. I'm a living human being, and so are my children and life on Earth. The final solution of point reductionism would mean the end of all life on Earth, murder of our children, sacrificing all life in the Molok of the Omega point. And for what? For a sick geometric fantasy of your and/or collective ego, which keeps on doing every trick in the book to keep 'Christ' or whatever name for God's Love in abstract distance instead of Love actualizing in your living life here and now. I do know that opening of Heart can be terrifying. And know that you are free to resist and run away, keep on running until the end of world of the imaginary Omega point, if you so choose. What is your choise? Do you want to receive and feel the power of love in this living life, or do you want to keep on running away in fear?

It is your choice, and if you choose Love, you know what to do: Ask and you shall be given.

[DandelionSoul]

Actually I thought I was disagreeing You said the "light" in the analogy would be the reflective interaction of the mirrors, correct? I don't see how that could be correct without assuming meaning beyond the mere reflective activity.

Oh, I meant that no reflection happens unless there's light, and the light isn't accounted for in Rovelli's house of mirrors analogy.

[AshvinP]

Actually I thought I was disagreeing You said the "light" in the analogy would be the reflective interaction of the mirrors, correct? I don't see how that could be correct without assuming meaning beyond the mere reflective activity.

Oh, I meant that no reflection happens unless there's light, and the light isn't accounted for in Rovelli's house of mirrors analogy.

Alright great then we definitely agree! I hold the "light" to be pretty important here, whether it be a point of light, a line of light, a cone of light, a sphere of light, or any other geometrical shape of light What do you think?

[AshvinP]

All of the above results from your decision to play games with yourself and see how much you can abstract away from who the living human being, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, was...

In the conventional sense, Teilhard is not a living human being, he died in 1955. So most concretely, he did not intend his theory of point-reduction to himself, but all children of Mother Earth.

So now your main argument has actually become a misreading of my sentence above... which would have been irrelevant even if it had been correct. I think that about sums up the entire essence of your strategy here.

PTC speaks of the "Light" from the Sun by which, and only by which, we can all see clearly the path ahead of us. I don't care if he calls it a "point" or any other geometrical shape, because I approach his essential meaning with good will and generosity. And I don't arrogantly presume that there is Light allowing me to see from anything other than the Sun simply because I don't like the Sun and want light from somewhere else. He is not speaking anything other than what Goethe spoke of when he said...

"Were not our eyes profoundly of the sun
How could they behold the light?
Were not our strength from God's own being won,
How could we feel so in Things divine delight."

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Something Like the Sun

[DandelionSoul]

Alright great then we definitely agree! I hold the "light" to be pretty important here, whether it be a point of light, a line of light, a cone of light, a sphere of light, or any other geometrical shape of light What do you think?

I suppose. You seem to be going somewhere with that thought, and I'm not sure where, but for now I can at least agree that no reflection happens absent light. And the light itself only appears in its interaction with the mirrors. So there's a reciprocal relationship there between light and mirrors, and both are necessary for the reflections-of-reflections to obtain.

[AshvinP]

Alright great then we definitely agree! I hold the "light" to be pretty important here, whether it be a point of light, a line of light, a cone of light, a sphere of light, or any other geometrical shape of light What do you think?

I suppose. You seem to be going somewhere with that thought, and I'm not sure where, but for now I can at least agree that no reflection happens absent light. And the light itself only appears in its interaction with the mirrors. So there's a reciprocal relationship there between light and mirrors, and both are necessary for the reflections-of-reflections to obtain.

Well I presume you are still working on a response in the other thread so I won't keep bugging you here. The existence of "Light" for the reflective mirrors is more like a conclusion for me than an argument, so it's not really helpful to start from there. But if we say the "Light" is the eternal Spirit, and we as human souls are the reflective "mirrors" existing in Time, then I agree they are both necessary poles for any experience to obtain.

[DandelionSoul]

Alright great then we definitely agree! I hold the "light" to be pretty important here, whether it be a point of light, a line of light, a cone of light, a sphere of light, or any other geometrical shape of light What do you think?

I suppose. You seem to be going somewhere with that thought, and I'm not sure where, but for now I can at least agree that no reflection happens absent light. And the light itself only appears in its interaction with the mirrors. So there's a reciprocal relationship there between light and mirrors, and both are necessary for the reflections-of-reflections to obtain.

Well I presume you are still working on a response in the other thread so I won't keep bugging you here. The existence of "Light" for the reflective mirrors is more like a conclusion for me than an argument, so it's not really helpful to start from there. But if we say the "Light" is the eternal Spirit, and we as human souls are the reflective "mirrors" existing in Time, then I agree they are both necessary poles for any experience to obtain.

I am, but life is life and I haven't been able to be as fully present as I'd like in writing my responses for a couple of days, so progress is very slow-going. Responding in these shorter-form conversations is more manageable for now.

[SanteriSatama]

So now your main argument has actually become a misreading of my sentence above... which would have been irrelevant even if it had been correct.

Not my main argument. The use of italics in that context was interesting, telling of something.

PTC speaks of the "Light" from the Sun by which, and only by which, we can all see clearly the path ahead of us.

Why the quotes around light? And why absolutes "only" and "all"?

Light from the sun come from the past, so technically going towards light means going towards past, toward what wasreflected. And visible light is only a small fraction of wavelengths. Bats inform their paths by echo-location, which reflects back the sound they emit. Endlessly wonderful differences in the sentient world. Sun is far from the only source of light, there's also bioluminescence.

Technically we are going towards gravity, dropping in centers of gravity - and the dropping is stopped by touch, our feet kissing the surface of Earth. Where does light come from in dreams and visions in the spirit world, such as geometric ideas? BTW Greek 'idea' comes from verb 'idein', which is same PIE root as Latin video - to see.

Have you had dreams where you can fly, free of gravity pull?

To tie with to topic of the thread, Rovelli etc. quantum physicists have no coherent theory of quantum gravity, and despite all the effort, the search for unified theory has not been going anywhere. Why is that, what is their problem and cause of stagnation?

To answer that question, it is important to think clearly and comprehend the concept of point correctly. The theory of mathematics in which mathematical physics works is point-reductionism. According to their math, lines, planes, surfaces, fields, everything is made of points. It's "points all the way down", but if you ask BK or anybody else who still thinks math according to the physicalist-formalist conditioning, they can't answer what is the definition of "point" in their idea if infinite regress of points all the way down. Hilbert's axioms of geometry don't offer any definition, any sensible meaning for the physicalist "point", of which everything is made. Hilbert's axioms of geometry, the foundation of the formalist-physicalist paradigm of scientism, postulate "point" as undefined "primitive notion". Ie. a semantic void, a meaningless pseudoconcept.

In physicalist ontology of set theory, even the smallest distance consists of infinity of points. To travel from point A to point B, you have to travel the infinity of points in between, so you never get anywhere even in infinite time. That is nothing new, the absurdity of point reductionism has been clear since Zeno presented his paradoxes.

Hard to believe, but the physicalist-formalist ontology of point-reductionism is really that crazy. How can they be that crazy??? The explanation that makes most sense is Hans Christian Andersen's story of Emperor's New Clothes.

You argue that Hans Christians story is just vile post-structuralist deconstructionism, and that the Authorites do know better, cause, you know, they are the Authorities!!! Sure, whatever, but what's then the "point" of thinking when we can just blindly believe and obey and consent?

I don't care if he calls it a "point" or any other geometrical shape, because I approach his essential meaning with good will and generosity.

Why don't you care about the meaning of point? Are you OK with ontology and society that reduces you to an absurdly meaningless point? Why should you or anybody else consent to the "law" of point reductionism?

And I don't arrogantly presume that there is Light allowing me to see from anything other than the Sun simply because I don't like the Sun and want light from somewhere else. He is not speaking anything other than what Goethe spoke of when he said...

Counterfactual denial of bioluminescence etc. other sources of light sounds... kind of of arrogant. Should I like sun less, if it's not the only source of light, as there are also other stars and self-illuminating sources of light? Is the only value of sun... a monopoly?

[AshvinP]

I suppose. You seem to be going somewhere with that thought, and I'm not sure where, but for now I can at least agree that no reflection happens absent light. And the light itself only appears in its interaction with the mirrors. So there's a reciprocal relationship there between light and mirrors, and both are necessary for the reflections-of-reflections to obtain.

Well I presume you are still working on a response in the other thread so I won't keep bugging you here. The existence of "Light" for the reflective mirrors is more like a conclusion for me than an argument, so it's not really helpful to start from there. But if we say the "Light" is the eternal Spirit, and we as human souls are the reflective "mirrors" existing in Time, then I agree they are both necessary poles for any experience to obtain.

I am, but life is life and I haven't been able to be as fully present as I'd like in writing my responses for a couple of days, so progress is very slow-going. Responding in these shorter-form conversations is more manageable for now.

Yeah I understand, whatever works for you.