-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Does mindset affect the DMT experience or just the interpretation of it?
- Thread starter JamesLove
- Start date
Well, I play in a number of social realities, like the Nexus and other virtual spaces. Then there's virtual space of work, which has very different rules and actually breaks down into numerous smaller spaces - experimental biology, social engagement and economic. There's F2F friend-space which has different rules again.
Then there's ceremonial space, which requires extremely different behavior for effects.
There's kundalini yoga space. Garden space. DMT-breakthrough space. The different spaces engaged with through reading novels. Again for philosophy, and again for science. Human-sex space, cat-space, snake-space. Feng shui space. Cooking-space, which addresses food chemistry space, gustatory space and aesthetic space.
Then there's ceremonial space, which requires extremely different behavior for effects.
There's kundalini yoga space. Garden space. DMT-breakthrough space. The different spaces engaged with through reading novels. Again for philosophy, and again for science. Human-sex space, cat-space, snake-space. Feng shui space. Cooking-space, which addresses food chemistry space, gustatory space and aesthetic space.
They could, but what do they functionally gain from doing so? What do they lose? Seems from here that the loses come much larger than the gains.
And what of the mutually contradictory aspects? Simple wishing them away in theory doesn't change the functional necessity of following the internally consistent rule-sets.
And what of the mutually contradictory aspects? Simple wishing them away in theory doesn't change the functional necessity of following the internally consistent rule-sets.
clouds said:
Computers are able to perform mathematical computations much more efficiently than human beings. There are even Theorem-proving algorithms (in fact, Fermat’s Last Theorem was in effect proven by a computer).
So where does a computer’s understanding of mathematical truth come from? Does it come from the same Abstract World that ours comes from? If yes, and if the interface is consciousness, then a necessary claim you are making is that computers are conscious. If no, then you’re acknowledging that concepts can exist outside of the Abstract World.
So which is it? Conscious computers interfacing the Abstract World, or concepts encoded in computer hardware and software?
Mmmhh... you are right. Consciousness is not the appropriate word.
I think computers operate in the realm of Calculus. And humans have minds that operate in the realm of language and creativity. Although computers can operate in the realm of language and creativity but not 'as good as humans' and vice-versa for Calculus. This is a generalization.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that some basic mathematic laws appear (to me) to be timeless (eternal)... don't take too serious the term "Abstract World". It is not a place. Although I'm posting this on DMT-Nexus... so who knows - maybe it is a place.
Another idea: Suppose this reality is not 'real'... do you think outside this reality 1 + 1 =/= 2 ?
I accept the idea that this universe may not be real. However, I think it is real.
____________________________________________________________________________
I think that what you are trying to say is that Math Laws are something cultural, and that humans invented Math to explain reality.
I think that what humans did is to discover abstract concepts that are True. And those concepts have both meaning and utility.
Isn't that the whole debate here?
____________________________________________________________________________
Let's not forget that we humans created the computers, so in a sense they are tools. Not beings interacting with The Abstract World.
A simple calculator is a tool we humans (conscious beings) invented. It's not up to the computer. Today, we create computers... and chess games.
I think computers operate in the realm of Calculus. And humans have minds that operate in the realm of language and creativity. Although computers can operate in the realm of language and creativity but not 'as good as humans' and vice-versa for Calculus. This is a generalization.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that some basic mathematic laws appear (to me) to be timeless (eternal)... don't take too serious the term "Abstract World". It is not a place. Although I'm posting this on DMT-Nexus... so who knows - maybe it is a place.
Another idea: Suppose this reality is not 'real'... do you think outside this reality 1 + 1 =/= 2 ?
I accept the idea that this universe may not be real. However, I think it is real.
____________________________________________________________________________
I think that what you are trying to say is that Math Laws are something cultural, and that humans invented Math to explain reality.
I think that what humans did is to discover abstract concepts that are True. And those concepts have both meaning and utility.
Isn't that the whole debate here?
____________________________________________________________________________
Let's not forget that we humans created the computers, so in a sense they are tools. Not beings interacting with The Abstract World.
A simple calculator is a tool we humans (conscious beings) invented. It's not up to the computer. Today, we create computers... and chess games.
gibran2 said:
Computers are made by humans. Therefore it has to be "concepts encoded in computer hardware and software."
Every tought is abstract. Some are true for anybody, some are not.
I guess these whole mathematical ideas are something like rules which are created trough the physical world.
We are perceiving these rules and try to make things easier by putting these abstract connections in numbers and formulas.
Yes, that’s all true. But if I remember the original math discussion (and it seems this discussion has meandered quite a bit!), the question was about where mathematical concepts resided. I claimed that they reside within human brains, and I suppose we could include computers and the physical universe itself. Clouds claimed that these concepts reside in some sort of “abstract world” that is non-physical yet has some sort of existence. I have trouble understanding this “abstract world” idea. Maybe it hasn’t been defined well enough, or maybe it’s just a concept beyond my grasp.Mr_DMT said:
So, is math invented or discovered? I’d say both.
gibran2 said:
You think 1 + 1 = 2 is True, but because our minds can grasp the concept (thanks to our brain).
I think 1 + 1 = 2 is True, because it is impossible that 1 + 1 =/= 2. It's just True. It never started to be true.
You think that our brains are responsible for the Creation of Math.
I think that our brains can help us understand Math, which are concepts that are True beyond time and space.
Are you really having trouble understanding what I'm trying to say?
A simple question. Can you prove 1 + 1 = 2 is a wrong equation? No, you cant.
So if 1 + 1 = 2 is True and Real, then Truth exists and Reality can be.
When did 1 + 1 = 2 started to be True?
When we started to think? C'mon man.
clouds said:
I think this could be cleared up if you think of the statement "1+1=2" in terms of the definitions of 1,+,=, and 2. What exactly do you mean by 1 and 2? Clearly they're concepts that point to something beyond themselves - and it's hard to think of what they mean since we're so used to dealing with them. Bertrand Russell suggested the first number our species came up with was 2. He suggests that we noticed a certain similarity (or isomorphism) between, say, a man and his child, and a bird flying with another bird, and a stick with another stick, and so forth. This shared property we called "two" (or whatever grunt designated what we mean by 2). In Russell's thinking, "two" is the property shared by the set of all pairs of objects - that is the set of all sets whose elements can be matched up with the elements of the set {x,y}, where x and y are distinct objects. Similarly, "three" is the property shared by the set of all sets of the form {x,y,z}, where x, y, and z are distinct objects, and so forth. "One", then, is simply the property shared by sets of the form {x}, where x is any object. So 1+1=2 is a statement that simply means when we take any set that has the property of having one element, and combine that element with the element of another, distinct set containing one element, we get a set containing two elements. So 1+1=2 is always true, in any universe, when 1 and 2 are defined in this way. Perhaps in some universes, or on some planets, the properties of existence are somewhat different. Perhaps there are planets where everything is a gaseous muck, so there are no two distinct elements. To a conscious entity living on such a planet the statement "1+1=2" would not make sense; it would be meaningless. If this interests you I recommend checking out a very rich book by Roger Penrose called "The Emperor's New Mind".
gibran2 said:
I think this "abstract world" is what Plato means by the "World of Forms". In "The Emperor's New Mind" Penrose gives two examples of mathematical objects that seem to exist quite apart from human invention, the Mandelbrot Set and the complex numbers. When Mandelbrot first outputted the images of his namesake set onto his computer screen, he thought there was some sort of machine error. However, when he kept refining the images (ie with further and more refined iterations of the algorithm) he saw a clear pattern emerging. All computer-based images of the Mandelbrot Set, however, are mere approximations to the Mandelbrot Set. The computer is limited in both computational capacity and image-producing ability, so we'll never be able to see a perfect picture of the Mandelbrot Set. So the Mandlebrot Set does seem to exist - we can view increasingly accurate images of it - but we can never actually produce a complete image of it here on Earth. So it appears that it actually does exist, but not in a physical sense, only in an abstract sense, ie: in an "abstract world", a "world of ideas". This may sound fluffy but there are plenty of concepts that seem to exist in the "abstract world", such as all sorts of mathematical properties/structures that have yet to be discovered, but that seem to exist on their own, awaiting discovery. The "abstract world" seems to have a structure to it, seems to have properties - such as being useful in modelling phenomena in the "physical world", so it makes since to describe it as a "world" or "level of reality" on its own.
Another point Penrose makes is that some mathematical concepts or ideas seem to be invented, while some seem to be discovered. The "complex numbers", for example, were "made up" by Cardano when he needed to describe a solution for the square root of a negative number. However, the complex numbers have all sorts of beautiful and fascinating properties that suggest they exist on their own, apart from human invention. They were, therefore, "discovered". On the other hand, in the course of mathematics, sometimes it's necessary to use a contrived example in the course of a line of argument, in order to, say, establish a theorem. Such contrived examples, unlike the complex numbers, often have no interesting properties of their own, so it makes sense to say that they are "inventions" of humans.
I don't know if this makes sense, but I think that's enough for now. I'm glad to see "the world of mathematics" continually being brought up in discussions about the "reality" of Hyperspace since the two debates are very similar.
1+1=2 isn't true because a human mind understands it, its true because it's a fact of our reality.
The universe itself understands this equation. The splitting of an atom creates 2 therefore 1 thing can be halved to create 2. The proof of this fact happens everywhere in the universe whether the human mind knows it or not.
Every number is a fraction of the original number one, the blob that exploded and became everything else
when the big bang happened and for talking sake it broke into 10 pieces and then those 10 pieces broke into 100 pieces and etc and etc. By nature of the universe mathemtaics is a natural law and humans deciphered it, that's all.
The universe itself understands this equation. The splitting of an atom creates 2 therefore 1 thing can be halved to create 2. The proof of this fact happens everywhere in the universe whether the human mind knows it or not.
Every number is a fraction of the original number one, the blob that exploded and became everything else
when the big bang happened and for talking sake it broke into 10 pieces and then those 10 pieces broke into 100 pieces and etc and etc. By nature of the universe mathemtaics is a natural law and humans deciphered it, that's all.
But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.DeMenTed said:
DeMenTed wrote:
1+1=2 isn't true because a human mind understands it, its true because it's a fact of our reality.
But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.
Well we have 1 brain split into 2 parts, 2 half brains = 1 full brain. That fact was true before humans could grasp the concept. Maths is intrinsically sewed into the fabric of physical reality.
1+1=2 isn't true because a human mind understands it, its true because it's a fact of our reality.
But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.
Well we have 1 brain split into 2 parts, 2 half brains = 1 full brain. That fact was true before humans could grasp the concept. Maths is intrinsically sewed into the fabric of physical reality.
All of this is filtered through a human mind. I hear what you're saying, but you can't escape the fact that everything we "know" is limited by our being human. You can't omnisciently comment on what "objectively" is, outside of the human experience. There is no proof that 1+1=2 is an objective truth and has any meaning outside of what we humans ascribe to it. You can make arguments as to why this is the case, or why "it must be" the case, but that simply does not mean you have proved that it is the case.DeMenTed said:
The discussion is not really about truth vs. falsehood. If we define a statement to be true, then by definition it is true. Nothing too exciting there. My interest is about the “location” of abstract ideas. Some seem to think it exists in some vague immaterial “place” and that we somehow access this place when we acquire a new concept. I claim that the abstract world (if we call it that) exists within the human brain.
The Mandelbrot set is actually a good illustration of my point: the Mandelbrot set does not exist. A mathematical expression that conforms to what we call the Mandelbrot set exists. Computer algorithms capable of generating visual approximations of it exist, visual approximations of it exist, mental concepts related to it exist in the brains of individuals who know something of it. But the Mandelbrot set doesn’t exist (and in our universe, could never possibly exist). What does it even mean for a mathematical set to “exist”?
My claim has been that there is no such thing as an “abstract world”. It does not exist. It does not contain ideas, or concepts. All of our abstract ideas exist within our minds – in our physical brains. We can speak metaphorically of an abstract world, and in some metaphorical sense it exists, but what’s significant about that? Anything and everything we can possibly imagine exists in a metaphorical sense. How is that significant?
The Mandelbrot set is actually a good illustration of my point: the Mandelbrot set does not exist. A mathematical expression that conforms to what we call the Mandelbrot set exists. Computer algorithms capable of generating visual approximations of it exist, visual approximations of it exist, mental concepts related to it exist in the brains of individuals who know something of it. But the Mandelbrot set doesn’t exist (and in our universe, could never possibly exist). What does it even mean for a mathematical set to “exist”?
My claim has been that there is no such thing as an “abstract world”. It does not exist. It does not contain ideas, or concepts. All of our abstract ideas exist within our minds – in our physical brains. We can speak metaphorically of an abstract world, and in some metaphorical sense it exists, but what’s significant about that? Anything and everything we can possibly imagine exists in a metaphorical sense. How is that significant?
gibran2 said:
I disagree. If we define 5 + 5 = 12, then that is not true. Even if we accept that to be true, it is not True.
Of course we can change the meaning of the symbol "5" to be "6" and "6" to be "5", but we will never change the fact that five things plus five things equals ten things.
The location of the Abstract world is Everywhere. Even in gaseous planets with gaseous beings. Since there are a number of Stars and a number of galaxies, a number of atoms and a number of individuals. Before humans existed there were a number of stars and a number of galaxies. When humans disappear, Mathematics laws will still exist.
What do you mean?
Similar threads
