(01-05-2010, 12:10 AM)Questioner Wrote: Therefore your explanations using a combination of formulas, illustrations, storytelling and philosophy is likely to have "something for everyone." And I'm glad you take this approach.
I'm glad it makes some sense! I was a little worried the jargon might make it a bit unapproachable =). As I mentioned I've shown it to a few buddies who have math chops, but they have a hard time grasping the idea of A ≠ A being as fundamental as the reflexive axiom (A = A). So this was a bit of an attempt to rework the explanation using analogies and real-world examples to better communicate the concept.
Since I've found it somewhat difficult to get the core ideas across it's been a bit of a challenge to get to the point where friends in academia understand that if step (16) is correct (which it has to be if algebra holds) that we're then seeing a 0-dimensional point exhibiting characteristics of a 1-dimensional object with infinite length. Which seems to show that all things are basically geometric cross-sections of higher dimensional volumes.
Meaning any 0-dim point is a cross-section of a 1-dim line. That 1-dim line is a slice of a 2-dim plane, and so on. This exhibits a sort of holding of hands between mathematical objects where they naturally grow as extensions of their connection with previous and future objects. Implying that 0, as the empty set, connects with infinity.
This is a significantly different way of thinking of math. To give an example, usually people think of multiplication and division such that 1 is a special property of the function rather than the other way around where the number fundamentally embodies the operation. Either viewpoint here is a bit naive because both statements are correct. To understand this set the domain and range such that ℝ-{1}, then it's possible to see that 2 * 3 ≠ 6 because 6 ≠ 6 since 6 / 6 ≠ 1. Meaning 6 isn't a part of itself which is an obvious paradox. So 1 must hold or no number holds for multiplication and/or division.
Looking at math as a two-way street where numbers are many-to-one functions, it's possible to see numbers themselves fundamentally have geometric characteristics.
Quote:Do you have an interest in learning how to be a deliberate, conscious channel? I see many times that the entities regret that they are not able to provide more detailed science and math answers. But they are simply not able to express concepts that have no parallel in the human's mind. With your perspective, I have to wonder if the entities might welcome your deliberately making yourself available for them to go deeper into such subjects than they can with many others.
Sounds interesting, but I have to admit what happened back in August scared the living hell out of me. Basically when I realized that "the lack of something causes it's pursuit" I had the bright idea that if you can cancel a harmonic in your head (i.e. emulating the empty-set) that it might have the effect of touching infinity. This made sense at the time because as Dan Sherman noted in his book, Above Black, part of his training for PPD involved trying to collapse a visual / audio-wave form in his mind to effect the external visual mechanism and engage in unconventional communications.
So I gave it a go not expecting much to happen and things got weird. Bearing that in mind I'd be curious how something like channeling might work, but I'd really want to understand the pros and cons of what channels experience as side-effects opening themselves to these external stimuli.
Quote:Also, do you have any expertise in computer programming? Have you seen carrie's threads about her Law of One video game concept?
Yep, I've been in the game biz for a number of years now. I haven't read carrie's thread yet, but I'll take a peek. Sadly not many studios are receptive to outside ideas. Especially if they're not in-line with what market research has identified as being sufficiently lucrative. Which is yet just another reason why the game industry is stagnating.