## Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Structure and Function of the Real Number System.

When I was a child I counted with my hands using my fingers and thumbs.

It seemed to me that this was not encouraged and was infact discouraged.

What for?

I know that when I was ten I knew it all.
I could see the universe for its Real Number Value.
I knew there were two charges.
I knew everything I have gotten back.

They take it from you, the genius inside of you.

Listen to what I say very careful and open your minds eye as you use your hands.
The Numbers beyond 9 are NOT REAL.
Thats right, they are only valid when understood for what they are and what they represent.
They are a Spiral Phase Shift beyond 9.

I always thought that the number 15 was a lie, here is why.
It is not 10 + 5 as it appears. Its not a 5.
Its a 4 hiding as 15, it has exposed its spin value and phase relationship
EUREKA!
15 is really 5-1, not 10 + 5
Its spin value is 4, its phase shift is 1
So with all double digits, the first number = the Spin PhaseShift Number
Subtracted or Added to the second number = Real Spin Number (the + or - depends on the size of the two numbers)

Ie 54 = 5 phase shift rotations for number 9 (5+4)
LOL.

Every Number over Nine is not a Real Number, it is a Ratio of its Phase Relationship to its Spin Value.

I assign the existance of spin to each Real Number 1-9.
Everything Spins.
If numbers are Real, they MUST Spin.

I then assign a Phase relationship of cycles to that foundation.
Its Phase Shift.
This is determined by Casting Out Nines.
When you Cast Out Nines, the 8 is the last Real Number
9 is the Upper Zero.
Every Number over 9 is in two or more digits.
Its a spin value with phase relationship.
Look at the Number 8.
Look at the Number 9.
In-Too-Me-I-See

8 is the final number, it is infinity.
9 is the second 0, it has a spin, notice its angle vector....it returns to 8.

The Identification of Both Spin Real Number Value and Phase Cycle Relationship will expose the Leverage Principle of 12.

This will create the Vector Equilibrium Matrix of Synergetics by Fuller.

Rodin has hit on something, it is the 2-D representation of this Structure.
(Funny Toto hated me for this)
It is the Universal Vortex Transformer Doubling Circuit.
Now what could be more important to the EU?
Maybe Toto can live without a Transformer, The Universe Cannot.
One therefore needs to be able to EXPLAIN WHY a Transformer Doubles, not just that it does.
It is due to the structure of vortex space.
Structure cannot be Seperated from Function.
Real Number Values Cannot be Seperated from Structure and Function.
This is the 2-D Magic Square of all Real Numbers and Vortex Space Structure.

578
693
124

Its Mirror Opposite as the Universe has two spin directions (miniumum) when in 2-D.
421
396
875

This is the Sign of 3-D and 4-D Spin Enlightenment.

Tesla was right about 3, 6, 9.
Last edited by junglelord on Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Real Spin Number Defines the Primary Angle (angular momentum) which are 60 degrees each.
Phase Shift Number Defines the Frequency of that Angle overtime Ratio.

Your Hands are the Structure and Function of all Real Numbers and EM spacetime relationships.

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Hi Junglelord,
[Don't know if this is the correct thread for this as you have so many on the go (more threads than a frayed cuff)].

Here's a simplified account of Number according to the Sage of Samos, via Schwaller and West:
1. One, the Absolute or unity, created multiplicity out of itself. One became Two.
This Schwaller de Lubicz calls the 'Primordial Scission' (Division, Separation). It is forever unfathomable and incomprehensible to human faculties (although language allows us to express what we cannot comprehend).
The creation of the universe is a mystery. But in Egypt this was regarded as the only ineluctable mystery —beyond the Primordial Scission, all is in principle comprehensible. And if it is objected that a philosophy founded upon a mystery is unsatisfactory, it must be remembered that modern science is rife not only with mysteries, but with abstractions corresponding to no possible experience in reality: the zero, which is a negation; infinity, which is an abstraction; and the square root of minus one, which is both a negation and an abstraction.Egypt carefully avoided the abstract.
Turn (transcendent cause), in regarding himself, created Atum out of Nun, the primeval waters.
In our terms unity, the Absolute or unpolarised energy, in becoming conscious of itself, creates polarised energy. One becomes simultaneously Two and Three.
Two, regarded by itself, is divisive by nature. Two represents the principle of multiplicity; Two, unchecked, is the call to chaos. Two is the Fall.
But Two is reconciled to unity, included within unity, by the simultaneous creation of Three. Three represents the prin­ciple of reconciliation, of relationship. (This three­in­one is of
course the Christian trinity, the same trinity that is described in innumerable mythologies throughout the world.)
Numbers are neither abstractions nor entities in themselves.
Numbers are names applied to the functions and principles upon which the universe is created and maintained.

2. The Absolute, unity, in becoming conscious of itself creates multiplicity, or polarity. One becomes Two.
Two is not One plus One. Metaphysically, Two can never be the sum of One plus One since, metaphysically, there is only one One, which is All.
Two expresses fundamental opposition, fundamental contrariety of nature: polarisation. And polarity is fundamental to all phenomena without exception. In Egyptian myth, this fundamental opposition is vividly depicted in the interminable conflict between Seth and Horus (ultimately reconciled after the death of the king).
Polarity is fundamental to all phenomena without exception, but it changes in aspect according to the situation. This fact is taken into account in common language. We apply different names according to the situation or category of phenomena. Negative, positive; active, passive; male, female; initiating, resisting; affirming, denying; yes, no; true, false — each pair represents a different aspect of the same, fundamental principle of polarity.
Two, regarded in itself, represents a state of primordial or principial tension. It is a hypothetical condition of eternally unreconciled opposites. (In nature, such a state does not exist.) Two is static. In the world of Two, nothing can happen.

3. A relationship must be established between opposing forces. The establishment of relationship is, in itself, that third force. One, in becoming Two, becomes Three simultaneously. The 'becoming' is the third force, automatically providing the innate and necessary (and mysterious) reconciling principle.
Here we come to an insoluble problem in both language and logic. The logical mind is polar by nature and cannot accept or comprehend the principle of relationship. Throughout history, scholars, theologians and mystics have been faced with the problem of explaining the trinity in discursive language.
(Plato wrestled manfully with it in his description of the 'world soul'; to all but Pythagoreans it seems gibberish.) Yet the principle of Three is easily applied to daily life where, again according to the nature of the situation, we apply a different name.
Male/female is not a relationship. For there to be relationship there must be 'love' or at least 'desire'. A sculptor and a block of wood will not produce a statue. The sculptor must have 'inspiration'. Sodium/chlorine is not in itself enough to produce a chemical reaction; there must be 'affinity'. Even the rationalist, the determinist, pays unwitting homage to the principle: unable to account for the physical world through genetics and environment, he calls in 'interaction', which is a label applied to a mystery.
Logic and reason are faculties for discerning, distinguishing, discriminating (note the Greek prefix di-, meaning two). But logic and reason will not account for everyday experience: even logicians fall in love.
So, while we cannot measure or know Three directly, we experience it everywhere. From common everyday experience, we can project and recognise the metaphysical role of Three; we can see why trinities are universal to the mythologies of the world. Three is the 'Word', the 'Holy Ghost', the Absolute conscious of itself. Man does not directly experience the Absolute or unity or the Primordial Scission. But the famous mystical experience, union with God, is, I believe, the direct experience of that aspect of the Absolute that is consciousness.

4. Material, substance, things; the physical world is the matrix of all sensuous experience. But material or substance cannot be accounted for in two terms or in three. Two is an abstract or 'spiritual' tension. Three is an abstract or 'spiritual' relationship. Two and three are insufficient to account for the idea of 'substance', and we can illustrate this by analogy. Lover / beloved / desire is not yet a 'household' or even an affair. Sculptor / block / inspiration is not yet a statue. Sodium / chlorine / affinity is not yet salt. To account for matter in principle requires four terms: sculptor / block / inspiration / statue; lover / beloved / desire / affair; sodium / chlorine / affinity / salt.
Thus matter is a principle over and above polarity and relationship. It includes, of necessity, both Two and Three, yet is something beyond the sum of its constituents, as every sculptor and lover knows full well. Matter or substance is both a composite and a new unity; it is an analogue of the absolute unity, with its triune nature.
The four terms needed to account for matter are the famous four elements — which are not, as modern science believes, a primitive attempt to account for the mysteries of the material universe, but rather a precise and sophisticated means of describing the inherent nature of matter. The ancients did not think that matter was actually made up of the physical realities fire, earth, air and water. They used these four commonplace phenomena to describe the functional roles of the four terms necessary to matter — or, rather, to the principle of substantiality. (At Four we have not arrived yet at the actual physical stuff we stub our toes against.) Fire is the active, coagulating princi­ple; earth is the receptive, formative principle; air is the subtle, mediating principle, that which effects the interchange of forces; water is the composite principle, product of fire, earth and air — and yet a 'substance' over and above them.
Fire, air, earth, water. The ancients chose with care. To say the same thing in modern terms requires more words, and none stick in the memory. Active principle, receptive principle, mediating principle, material principle — why bother with such abstractions when fire, earth, air and water say the same and say it better?
In Egypt, the intimate connection between Four and the material or substantial world was applied in symbolism. We find the four orientations, the four regions of the sky, the four pillars of the sky (material support of the realm of the spirit), the four sons of Horus, the four organs, the four canopic jars into which the four organs were placed after death, the four children of Geb, the earth.
Unity is perfect, eternal, undifferentiated consciousness. Unity becoming conscious of itself creates differentiation, which is polarity. Polarity, or duality, is a dual expression of unity. Thus each aspect partakes of the nature of unity and of the nature of duality — of the 'One' and of the 'Other', as Plato put it.
Thus each aspect of primordial, spiritual duality is itself dual. The primordial Scission creates a twofold antagonism, which is reconciled by consciousness. This double reaction, or double inversion, is the basis of the material world. If we understand nothing of this fourfold process, we understand little of the world of phenomena — which is our world. Symbols, studied in the correct manner, make these processes clearer than words. The square inscribed in a circle represents passive, potential matter contained within unity.
It is this same principle of double inversion and reconciliation that lies behind all religious Egyptian art and architecture. The crossed arms of the mummified pharaoh — who (whatever his personal traits may have been) represents successive stages of the cosmic man — holds the crossed scepter and flail of his authority. Schematically, the point where the two arms of the Christian cross intersect represents the act of reconciliation, the mystical point of creation, the 'seed'. Upon a similar scheme, the exalted, mummified pharaoh represents the same abstract point.
The cross and the mummified pharaoh thus symbolise both Four and Five.

5. To the Pythagoreans, Five was the number of 'love' because it represented the union of the first male number, Three, and the first female number, Two.
Five may also be called the first 'universal' number. One, that is unity, containing as it does all and everything, is strictly speaking incomprehensible. Five, incorporating the principles of polarity and reconciliation, is the key to the understanding of the manifested universe. For the universe, and all phenomena without exception, are polar in nature, treble in principle.
From the roots of Two, Three and Five all harmonic proportions and relationships can be derived. The interplay of these proportions and relations commands the forms of all matter, organic and inorganic, and all processes and sequences of growth. It may be that in the not too distant future, with the aid of computers, science may come to a precise knowledge of these complex interactions. But it will not succeed in doing so until it accepts the underlying principles which the ancients knew.
So Five, to the Pythagoreans, was the number of love, but given the innumerable connotations of that much abused word, it is perhaps preferable to call Five the number of life.
Four terms are necessary to account for the idea of matter, or substance. But these four terms are insufficient to account for its creation. It is Five — the union of male and female — that enables it to 'happen'. And it is an understanding of Five in this sense that is responsible for the peculiar reverence in which Five has been held in so many cultures; this is why pentagram and pentagon have been sacred symbols in esoteric organisations (and why it is so ironic to see it currently used as the basis of the plan of the world's largest military headquarters). In ancient Egypt, the symbol for a star was drawn with five points. The ideal of the realised man was to become a star, and to 'become one of the company of Ra'.
The number of 'love', the number sacred to Pythagoras, the number symbolised by pentagon and pentagram, which commanded the proportions of the Gothic cathedrals, played a crucial but subtler role in Egypt. Apart from the hieroglyph of the five­pointed star, we find no overt instances of five­sided figures.
Instead Schwaller de Lubicz found the square root of Five commanding the proportions of the 'Holy of Holies', the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Luxor. In other instances he found the proportions of certain chambers dictated by the hexagon generated from the pentagon. In others, crossed 8x11 rectangles, the four­sided generators of the pentagon from the square, commanded the proportions of wall murals symbolically related to those functions represented by Five.
Egypt also made extensive use of the Golden Section which, from the Primordial Scission, commands the flow of numbers up to Five. The pentagram, made up of Golden Section segments, is the symbol of unremitting activity; Five is the key to the vitality of the universe, its creative nature. In mundane terms, Four accounts for the fact of the sculptor's statue, but does not account for the 'doing' of it. Five terms are required to account for the principle of 'creation'; Five is accordingly the number of 'potentiality'. Potentiality exists outside time. Five is therefore the number of eternity and of the principle of eternal creation, union of male and female — and it is for this reason, and along these lines of thought, that the ancients came to hold Five in what looks to us like a peculiar reverence.

6. Four terms are needed to account for the principle or idea of 'substance'. Five terms are needed to account for 'creation', for the act of becoming, the event. But five terms are insufficient to describe the framework in which the event takes place; the actualisation of potentiality. That framework is time and space.
We may call Six the number of the world, in this sense. Five,in becoming Six, engenders or creates time and space.
The functions, processes and principles relating to One, Two, Three, Four and Five may be called spiritual or metaphysical. In any case, they are invisible. We cannot actually see or even visualise a polarity, a relationship, principial substance or the act of creation. But we live in the world of time and space and, unfortunately for us, it is this overpowering sensory interpretation of time and space that conditions what we call 'reality', a reality that is but one aspect of the truth. Our language, with its tenses of past, present and future (not all languages have these tenses) reinforces the illusory picture drawn by the senses. From time immemorial, scholars, philosophers and thinkers have stubbed their brains against the problem of time and space, seldom realising that the language in which they hoped to solve the problem was itself ordered in such a way as to support the evidence of the senses.
In ancient times, the problem was probably less acute than it is today. Language is the principal instrument of expression of the intellectual faculty. When men were less dependent upon their intellects, and in all likelihood had more highly developed intuitional and emotional faculties, they were more susceptible to experiences that transcend time and space, and were able to accept the provisional evidence of the senses at its true value.
But the study of the symbolism of numbers and of the functions and principles numbers describe, allows us to grapple with it on a sound intellectual basis. It is no substitute for the mystical experience, which alone carries with it the unalterable emotional certainty that is 'faith'. But at least it enables us to see simultaneously both the 'real' nature of time and space and the conditional aspect of it returned by our sensory apparatus. It also allows us to reconcile the apparently irreconcilabe standpoints of Eastern mysticism, which holds that the world of the senses (and with it time and space) is illusion, and wholly a mental construct, and Western empiricism, which takes sensory data at face value despite the insoluble philosophical and scientific problems that this raises.
Both views are correct, depending upon the standpoint taken. In terms of the material world, time is real. Time is real as far as our bodies are concerned. We live and die. In terms of the spiritual world, time is not 'illusion' in the sense of falsely perceived reality. Rather, time does not exist. To the Absolute, to transcendent unity, there is no time. And all initiatic religions teach that the goal of man is reunion with the Absolute, with God, with the realm of 'spirit'. Therefore, an important aspect of all these teachings is the insistence upon the necessity to transcend time; for it is time which holds us in bondage to the material world.
The framework in which creation takes place is time and space, which requires six terms to define them. Creation does not take place within time; rather, time is an effect of creation.
Things do not exist within space; things are space. There is no time except that which is defined by creation; there is no space except that which is defined by volume. The material universe is an interpenetrating hierarchy of energies at different levels or orders of density, to which our senses have but limited access.
A science that attempts to explain the universal order in terms of human sensory experience, or through machines which are but quantitative extensions of human senses, is bound to travel further and further from a comprehensive understanding. This situation we see today, as specialities proliferate, and though lip service is paid to the undeniable interaction among the various fields, the specialists involved have no clue as to how or why these interactions take place. The interminable wrangle over whether the universe is ultimately material or ultimately spiritual goes on.
In Egypt and other ancient civilisations the situation was the opposite. In the vitalist philosophy there could be no distinction between mind and matter: both were understood as aspects of a single scheme. Only the Primordial Scission was unknowable; all else devolved from this event in terms of functions, principles and processes, and these were comprehensible in terms of number and communicable (in Egypt) in terms of the Neters (the so­called 'gods') whose attributes, gestures, size and position altered according to the role played within any given situation. (We do the same in less systematic fashion in modern language. We know — though we might not be able to 'prove' it — that the role of the 'man' in a polarity is not the same as the 'lover' in a relationship.) Six, the number of the material world and therefore of time and space, is the number chosen by the Egyptians to symbolise
temporal and spatial phenomena. Six served the Egyptians, as it does us, for the basic temporal divisions: twenty four hours in a day (twelve of day, twelve of night), twelve months of thirty days each in the year, plus five days in which 'the Neters were born'. This is neither accident nor coincidence, but a nat­ural corollary of the functional role of Six. (In celestial mechanics, discussions of motion employ a six­dimensional space — three for the position and three for the velocity of each particle or planet.)
Volume requires six directions of extension to define it: up and down, backwards and forwards, left and right. So in Egypt the cube, the perfect six­sided figure, was used as the symbol for actualisation in space; the cube is the symbol for volume.
Pharaoh sits squarely upon his throne, which is a cube (sometimes he is sculpted emerging from a cube). Man is placed unmistakably in material existence. Nothing could be clearer than this instance of conscious recognition of the role and function of Six. But to recognise it ourselves, we must be able to think as the Pythagoreans did.
Six is also symbolised by the hexagon, by the Seal of Solomon and by the double trigrams of the Chinese I Ching, each of which represents a different approach to Six and illustrates a different aspect, although these aspects are ultimately complementary. (The cube is the result of Six; the Seal of Solomon and double trigrams are Six in action.)
In Egypt, Schwaller de Lubicz found that the dimensions of certain specific halls of the Temple of Luxor were determined by the geometric generation of the hexagon from the pentagon. This is a symbolic expression of the materialisation of matter from the spiritual creative act. At the same time it is an actual expression of materialisation. The temple both symbolises and is time and space, in strict conformity to the relevant laws.

7. Five terms are required to account for the principle of life, for the creative act, the 'event'. Six terms describe the framework within which the event takes place. But six terms are insufficient to account for the process of coming­into­being, of becoming.
In the material world, we generally experience this process in terms of growth. But when we come to relate the functional significance of Seven to everyday experience, we begin to run out of analogical steam. At Five, the correspondence between the sculptor and the cosmic 'act' was precise. At Six we hover on the edge of metaphor. Our sculptor, at Six, was not creating time and space. He was himself already in time and space, and was creatively sculpting. The 'volume' of his statue was preexistent in the block of wood (though we might say, from the point of view of the statue, that the sculptor was re­enacting the role of God and creating time and space since the statue qua statue did not exist before).
At Seven, however, our analogy becomes pure metaphor. In no material or biological sense does the sculptor's statue 'grow'. We grow. An apple grows. But the 'growth' of the statue is purely metaphorical. (It may not seem entirely metaphorical to the sculptor who, by carefully observing the progress of his creation from idea or 'germ' to completion, may gain an insight into the principle of 'growth'.)
Seven terms are needed to account for the phenomenon of growth. Growth is a universal principle observable (and measurable) in all realms of the physical world, excepting the most microcosmic — we cannot observe or measure the growth of an atom or molecule.
Like all the principles and functions described up to now, all of which contribute to our experience of the world as it is, 'growth' cannot be accounted for scientifically. There is nothing in the behaviour of the hydrogen atom that makes predictable the growth of a kitten into a cat. But, as with all functions and processes, scientific ignorance is masked under jargon. Things grow because 'mechanisms' fortuitously initiated over the course of 'evolution' have proven 'growth' to be a factor conducive to 'survival'. This fatuous circumlocution is called 'rational thinking'.
It is interesting to remark that, up to this point, in relating number to function, we have been able to show why the numbers Two, Three, Four, etc. and not others, apply to polarity, relationship and substantiality, but we could not easily find concrete physical examples to substantiate the correlations: we can find no physical proof that a lump of salt, as material, is predicated by the meaning of Four. A skeptic might call the universal application of Six to time and space measuring systems arbitrary.
When we come to Seven, however, we can no longer relate it directly to our experience — we cannot of ourselves initiate 'growth'. But in the physical world we find a multitude of instances in which Seven manifests itself in growing or active systems.
Growth is not a continuous process. It takes place in discrete steps, in quantum jumps. Children seem suddenly to 'shoot up'. And so they do. Bones do not grow continuously; they grow in length for a period, and then in breadth. At certain (numerically determined) periods growth proceeds a pace. In between there is little growth.
Seven terms are needed to account for the principle of growth, and it is remarkable how often seven or multiples of seven command the actual steps or stages and sequences of growth — even more remarkable in view of the fact that science dismisses Pythagorean thinking and does not look for such correspondences. The data accumulate anyhow.
Seven terms are needed to account for the principle of growth, and it is remarkable how often seven or multiples of seven command the actual steps or stages and sequences of growth — even more remarkable in view of the fact that science dismisses Pythagorean thinking and does not look for such correspondences. The data accumulate anyhow.
Phenomena tend to completion in seven stages, or are complete within their specific stage. There are seven tones in the harmonic scale. It is the harmonic scale, and the human function of hearing, that give us direct access into the process of growth, of creativity manifesting itself. It is for this reason — not chance or superstition — that led the Pythagoreans explicitly, and the Egyptians implicitly, to employ the harmonic scale as the perfect instrument for teaching and demonstrating the workings of the cosmos.
Consider a string of a given length as unity. Set it vibrating; it produces a sound. Stop the string at its midpoint and set it vibrating. It produces a sound one octave higher. Division in two results in an analogue of the original unity. (God created Adam in his image, and it took Him seven days, or discrete stages, to carry out His work.) Drawn schematically, the divided vibrating string illustrates the principle of double inversion that pervades all of Egyptian symbolism — and that just now is being investigated by subatomic physicists as a fundamental characteristic of matter.
Between the original note and its octave there are seven intervals, seven unequal stages which, despite their inequality, the ear interprets as 'harmonious'.
We cannot describe or define harmony in rational or logical terms. But we react to it — and to its absence — instinctively. This reaction is characterised by an unmistakable sense of 'equilibrium'.
An atom is a moment of equilibrium. So is a cat. Equilibrium is a state in which positive and negative forces are balanced. Modern science, with its doctrine of entropy and negative entropy,* expresses the principle without recognising its functional significance. The Western astrological zodiac (product of the primitive imagination!) expresses the principle both precisely and completely. Libra, the Balance, is the seventh sign.
Seven signifies the union of spirit and matter, of Three and Four. One of the forms that traditionally expresses the meaning of Seven is the pyramid, so characteristic of Egyptian architecture — a combination of the square base symbolising the four elements and the triangular sides symbolising the three modes of spirit. The different pyramids are constructed in such a way as to express different functions of the Golden Section.

8. Before discussing the functions and principles inherent in Eight, it is worth interjecting a word of caution regarding number symbolism. As we progress from one number to another, each number not only symbolises and defines the specific function allotted to it, but incorporates all combinations of functions leading to it. For example, polarity, the tension between opposites, is simple and straightforward. But Five not only represents the act of creation; it incorporates Two and Three, the male and female principles, and two sets of opposites — the principle of double inversion — united by the invisible point of intersection. Five is also One, or unity, acting upon Four, or principial material, hence creation.
When we come to Seven, matters become even more complex. Each aspect or combination manifests itself differently.
Seven is Four and Three — the union of matter and spirit. It is Five and Two — fundamental opposition united by the act, by 'love'. It is Six and One — the fundamental note, 'do', actualised by Six. That is to say, in time and space it produces its octave tone, which is a new unity.
This new unity is not identical, but analagous, to the first unity. It is a renewal or self­replication. And to account for the principle of self­replication, eight terms are necessary. The old unity is no longer, a new unity has taken its place: the king is dead, long live the king.
In the zodiac, it is the eight sign, Scorpio, that traditionally symbolises death, sex and renewal.
In Egypt, the well­known text declares: 'I am One, who becomes Two, who becomes Four, who becomes Eight, and then I am One again'.
It is Thoth (Hermes to the Greeks, Mercury to the Romans) who is 'Master of the City of Eight'. Thoth, the messenger of the gods, is the Neter of writing, of language, of knowledge, of magic; Thoth gives man access to the mysteries of the manifested world, which is symbolised by Eight.
Number symbolism, related thus to function, provides the framework that makes the world of our experience comprehensible.
Eight, then, corresponds to the physical world as we experience it. But the physical world as we comprehend it is still more complex. The interacting functions up to Eight do not permit of pattern or plan — of the ordering of phenomena. Nor will an eight­term system account for the source of order or pattern — for the pattern­maker, as it were. It will not account for necessity (the principle that reconciles order and disorder). In order for there to be 'creation' it must first be necessary. Finally, there is the matrix within which all these functions operate simultaneously, which we might call the world of possibilities.These higher numerical functions correspond to Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve. The functions corresponding to these numbers are not a part of our direct experience, but philosophically we can recognise their necessity. Admittedly, these concepts are difficult to grasp — particularly since our education trains us to analyse, never to synthesise. Nevertheless, these functions are not abstractions — not in the sense that the square root of minus one is an abstraction — for they are essen­
tial to complete the framework of our experience, even if we cannot experience them directly.
In the zodiac each sign partakes of duality, triplicity and quadruplicity. Naturally, in the newspaper astrology (which scientists and scholars assume to be the only astrology there is) this fundamental aspect of the zodiac goes unnoticed. Unfortunately, most serious modern astrologers, while making intuitive use of the zodiacal signs, scarcely recognise the number symbolism upon which they are founded.
The physical universe is complete in principle in four terms: unity, polarity, relationship and substantiality. But the full actualisation of all possibilities requires the working out of all combinations of Two, Three and Four. This is accomplished in the twelve signs of the zodiac. The zodiac is divided into six sets of polarities, four sets of triplicities (the modes) and three sets of quadruplicities (the elements). Each sign is simultaneously polar (active or passive), modal (cardinal is that which initiates; fixed or fixing is that which is acted upon; mutable is that which mediates or effects the interchange of force) and elemental (fire, earth, air, water). Polarity is realised in time and space (six times two), spirit materialised (three times four) and matter spiritualised (four times three). Thus, four terms gives the world in principle. Eight terms gives the world actualised in time and space. Twelve terms gives the world of potentialities and possibilities.

9. Egypt evoked, but never explained. As we have seen, the correlations made between number and function are not arbitrary, and in each case it has been possible to show these correlations employed in the symbols and myths of Egypt. As a general rule, however, we have had to go looking for them, and it is necessary that we first understand the functional significance of number before we know how or where to look. Even the triads of Neters (and trinities throughout the mythologies of other civilisations) are not overt declarations of concern with number, or of an understanding of Three as the principle of relationship. The skeptic could easily argue that the phenomenon of male and female engendering new life is so self­evident that it might easily serve as a symbol without knowledge of its philosophical or Pythagorean connotations.
But a choice of Nine is not at all self­evident, and there can be no mistaking the importance attached to the number Nine by Egypt.
Nine is extremely complex, and practically insusceptible of precise verbal expression. The Grand Ennead (an ennead is a group of nine) is not a sequence, but the nine aspects of Turn — interpenetrating, interacting, interlocked. Diagrammatically, the Grand Ennead can be illustrated by that most intriguing of symbols, the tetractys, which was regarded as sacred by the Pythagorean brotherhood.
The Grand Ennead emanates from the Absolute, or 'central fire' (in the terminology of Pythagoras). The nine Neters (Principles) circumscribed about One (The Absolute) becomes both One and Ten. This is the symbolic analog of the original Unity; it is repetition, the return to the source. In Egyptian mythology the process is symbolised by Horus, the Divine Son who avenges the murder and dismemberment (by Set) of his father, Osiris.
The tetractys is a rich, many­layered symbol which repays meditation with an almost inexhaustible flow of meanings, relationships and correspondences. It is an expression of metaphysical reality, the 'ideal world' of Plato. Its numerical relationships express the basics of harmony: 1:2 (octave); 2:3 (fifth); 3:4 (fourth); 1:4 (double octave); 1:8 (tone).
Cursory as this essay into Pythagoreanism has been, it should be enough to suggest both the extreme complexity and extreme importance of Nine. And given its importance in the metaphysics of structure and pattern, it comes as no surprise to find it made manifest in the structure of the living cell, whose mitosis, it is held by some biologists, begins in the centriole, made up of nine little tubules.
The form of the double helix and the sequences of amino acids and proteins in basic cell structures and enzymes all follow clearly defined and precise patterns whose proportions and numerical relationships must conceal the reason why these things are as they are.
For example, water (H20) displays two basic harmonic attributes. Two hydrogens to one oxygen gives the octave; by volume, eight oxygen to one hydrogen gives 8:9, the tone.
Is this 'coincidence? No one can 'prove' that it is not. And yet these basic harmonic attributes do seem too neatly Pythagorean to dismiss. Remember that in the ancient system 'water' is the fourth element, the primal, principial 'substance' and analog of one, as the octave is the analog of the fundamental.
In the physical world water is the support of life. In the metaphysical world of Egypt, Turn creates himself out of Nun, the primeval waters. Creation proceeds harmonically, the octave is the instrument of process, of 'life', and the first note of the octave is the tone. To produce the perfect tone, the string must be proportioned 8:1 — just the ratio of oxygen to hydrogen atoms by volume. And creation is volume, which is space.
Taken from 'Serpent In The Sky' by John Anthony West.
Sorry about the formating but the text appears to have developed a mind of its own and has refused to do what I want.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

It now appears to have sorted itself out. Sheesh.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Wow, GC and JL really do worship numbers.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

altonhare wrote:Wow, GC and JL really do worship numbers.
I can't speak for milord Jungle, but for myself I worship nothing - neither man nor god.

Tis passing strange how those who consider themselves to be 'scientific', 'logical' and 'objective' are the very ones who introduce weasel words such as 'worship', 'faith' and 'religion' into any debate...
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Dorthy seems to worship 2-D.
You have already shown your inability to use grammer and philosophy as rebuttal.
junglelord wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,
That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".
Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.
OMG thats so funny.
Alton just proved he does not exist in his own 2-D Theory.
Thats Hair-Brained.
LOLOLOLOL.

Way to go GreyCloud, showing the falsehood of such babble.
You have no scientific rebuttal.
Your spin is exactly that, spin.

Dorthy will tell you I am twirling my thumbs, thats his spin.
I tell you I am calculating all of nature, thats my spin.
You can believe who ever you want.
I have however given the Key to each of you.
Take care to learn it and to pass it on.
Cast Out the Nines from PHI, invoke Fuller Indigs, and you will know the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

junglelord wrote:

Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,

That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".

Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.

OMG thats so funny.
Alton just proved he does not exist in his own 2-D Theory.
Thats Hair-Brained.
LOLOLOLOL.

Way to go GreyCloud, showing the falsehood of such babble.
The Scarecrow would like his head back on, "Mr. Wizard". Again simply show me a single something without shape and you win. If you cannot you lose, it's that simple. I accept jpg, bmp, fax, photos, ANSI, etc. Just name your format and we'll work something out.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

4 <--- This is an image on a screen. It has shape. That's all it is.

1 <--- This is another image on a screen. It also has shape. Its shape is different than the other.

You may perceive them as continuous, but in fact if you looked closely you'd find individual "pixels". If you could look very closely you would see atoms. Beyond that there will be smaller entities but their architecture is debatable. In any event, since we perceive them as single entities we will use them as such for convenience. Perhaps we could make these symbols refer to something else, something more complex, and save a great deal of trouble. Well, let's do that. I will tell you outright that they will refer to concepts rather than objects. That is to say, you will only understand these symbols by relationships among objects and/or comparisons of objects. I will do my best to make the comparisons clear. If you do not get it at first that's okay, just say so, I am very patient. Concepts can be difficult. If someone truly does not understand I will help them all day. So lets get to it.

1:I
2:II
3:III
4:IIII
5:IIIII
6:IIIIII

That's the best way I can help you understand what I am referring to when I use these symbols. If someone does not understand I will employ other methods. Now let's learn some other symbols, namely the "=":

1=1
2=2
A=A
B=B
II=II

Now we'll do "+":

I I <---- 1+1

I II <---- 1+2

III I <---- 3+1

See what I'm getting at here? Take some time with it. If you're stumped let me know and I'll try again.

Now let's see if we can use these images to refer the more complex concepts illustrated above altogether:

1+1=2

2+2=4

3+3=6

Seems good. But what if I get:

3+4= IIIIIII

I would like an image/symbol shorthand for everything. Hmm, I'll define a new symbol and illustrate it for you:

2X2=2+2
2X3=2+2+2
3X3=3+3+3
1X1=1
2X1=2
3X1=3
4X1=4
5X1=5
6X1=6

How does this help us with "3+4"? Well, we're going to make a system for generating symbols. We're going to take the basic ones we already have, the "1,2,3,4,5,and 6" and put them next to each other in a specific way. For instance:

11 = (6X1X1)+1

111 = (6X1X2)+(6x1X1)+1

1111 = (6X1X3)+(6X1X2)+(6X1X1)+1

21 = (6X2X1)+1

221 = (6X2X2)+(6X2X1)+1

2221 = (6X2X3)+(6X2X2)+(6X2X1)+1

2222 = (6X2X3)+(6X2X2)+(6X2X1)+2

See what I'm getting at here? Objectively, these are just images on a screen. However, because of the comparisons I have made I have tied them to concepts and ultimately to shapes (IIIIIII). Without the shapes originally there was no way to understand these symbols. The symbols I use and the system is arbitrary. The only requirement is that it is tied to something(s) with shape. By itself this:

4

Means absolutely nothing. You absolutely need the shapes and the comparisons among them to grant it any meaning. In the end, no matter how complex the concepts become or the system becomes, what we are discussing is a relationship among shapes. The SHAPES are what is important, not the symbol:

4

Four what? Apples? Stars? Hats? What is/are the shape(s) you are referring to you when you show me the symbol "4"?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Grey Cloud wrote:
altonhare wrote:Wow, GC and JL really do worship numbers.
I can't speak for milord Jungle, but for myself I worship nothing - neither man nor god.

Tis passing strange how those who consider themselves to be 'scientific', 'logical' and 'objective' are the very ones who introduce weasel words such as 'worship', 'faith' and 'religion' into any debate...
You spoke for me perfectly.
False induction is the germ of the Lie.
Signs of the ulterior motive.
The Numbers Speak for themself.
Their Language is PHI and Pi and e.
They do not Lie.
Structure and Function cannot be seperated.
They can deny that all they want.
It does not make it false.

Cheers brother.
JL.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Hi Alton,
1,2,3, etc and I, II, III, etc, are alpha-numeric characters we (humans) use as visual representations of a concepts or concepts. They are labels. They way numbers are used is not set in stone. It has varied throughout history and in the use by different cultures. In other words, your use of numbers is contingent upon you being a modern westerner. For instance the ancient Greeks did not begin counting until the number two. To them what we would call one cat, was a cat. They managed to build the Parthenon while using this mode of thinking. We have already seen, in the above post, that the Egyptians dealt with numbers differently than us. And, I dare say, that folk in Asia and the Orient have traditionally dealt with numbers in a manner different to us moderns.

As an additional point, and I know it will not cut the mustard with you, when I read Jungleord's post which involve numbers and mathematical formula and notation, on the surface level I do not understand them because that is not my vocabulary. However, I do understand what he is saying because I don't just read the words, I have the knack or ability of somehow pulling information/knowledge out of any text which has it. I can 'see' or comprehend the process which he is describing. I comprehend the essence of the thing.
When I read your posts this does not happen because there are only words on the surface, there is nothing below the surface. It is akin to reading a novel by, say, Goethe and a modern novel. Junglelord is try trying to describe the indescribible, i.e. what he 'sees' in his head. Your posts are just verbose rhetoric - you should have been a lawyer, you would have been very successful. You could have had a large concrete house, full of concrete objects and with a nice concrete car on the drive.
And now, that shapeless nothing called hunger tells me it is time for food (I hope it's not concrete again).
Last edited by Grey Cloud on Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

No wonder he is a modern day physicist.
They make great lawyers and priest as well.

I have dorthy and toto on the ignore list.
They both have nothing below the surface, like a cheap romance novel.
The grammer police.....2-D lovers and defenders of the 2-D Realm.
Not even their thoughts are real.
No wonder there is nothing below the surface.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Straw men JL, straw men. Of course my thoughts are real.

GC:

I understand your point about specific cultures having different systems. I know I learned one system. I don't care what system is used, but it has to have consistent rules. Such a system must not be deified. It is a tool, a shorthand notation. Whether you use roman numerals, alpha numerics, or something wholly unfamiliar to me, it is still a shorthand. The symbol refers to a concrete object or a group thereof. Do you disagree with this?

I'm glad you get something out of JL's posts. What exactly is it you get? Do you go into your garage and build new things from reading his posts? Or do you just get some measure of inner peace or some kind of spiritual satisfaction?

Indeed, when you use the collection of symbols "hunger" what you are referring to does NOT have shape because it's a concept! The word "shape" is a description reserved for entities (objects). If you try to show me hunger (assuming I'm an ET or someone who just doesn't understand it) you will have to show me entities and there interactions. However, it exists because it is some relationship (specifically a dynamic one) among shapes. You are, indeed, attacking straw men because you have not grasped the distinction, yet, between concepts (relationships among entities) and entities themselves. Concepts cannot be said to "have shape" OR to "not have shape" because shape is, by definition, reserved for objects/entities. The word "something", even by the conventional definition, refers to a thing with shape. This as opposed to the opposite of something "nothing" which does not have shape. Trying to say that "my thoughts are nothing" is an incorrect sentence because it is inconsistent. Thoughts are not somethings or nothings, they are relationships among somethings. You would say "my thoughts are a relationship among somethings". Alternatively you *could* say "My thoughts are a relationship among nothings" but that's axiomatically false, you are denying your own existence and yourself. However you cannot show me a picture of "thought" because it is not an object, it does not have shape. Do you understand the difference now? I made the mistake originally of harboring a very narrow definition of exist (shape and location) but that is resolved now.

You may see this as verbose and pedantic but you are committing the very same errors I am striving to eliminate. Some of the same errors I committed before (and for a while at) this forum. If you read my "resolution of exist" I think it makes it clear. There is no ambiguity.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Hi Alton,
You wrote:
I understand your point about specific cultures having different systems. I know I learned one system. I don't care what system is used, but it has to have consistent rules. Such a system must not be deified. It is a tool, a shorthand notation. Whether you use roman numerals, alpha numerics, or something wholly unfamiliar to me, it is still a shorthand. The symbol refers to a concrete object or a group thereof. Do you disagree with this?
Just how consistent can it be if it changes over time or geographical location? I agree that it is shorthand and a tool. That was my point. Mathematics is a communication tool used by humans. It is no different from writing, art or smoke-signals. None of these are concrete, absolute or set in stone. The term concrete in the sense you use has no meaning to me. To me, concrete is something used in construction. Concrete, in the way you and some of the others here use it, is a modern philosophical term. Modern philosophy (C20th on) constantly invents new words and definitions of words to hide the paucity of the actual philosophy. Nothing new in any meaningful sense has come out of philosophy for a century. Nietzsche was the last Philosopher and he died in 1900. Plato can be read by anyone of average intelligence but this is not the case with Logical-Positivism, Postmodernism and Deconstruction etc. They are all chock-full of either mathematics or technical jargon, which are chopped and chaged to suit the needs of the latest trendy philosophical school.
I'm glad you get something out of JL's posts. What exactly is it you get? Do you go into your garage and build new things from reading his posts? Or do you just get some measure of inner peace or some kind of spiritual satisfaction?
None of the above. I have no need or wish to build anything, inspired by Junglelord or anyone else. I would love to get some measure of inner peace from Junglord or anyone else. I have no idea what spritual satisfaction entails, so I presumably don't get that from Junglelord.
However, I do get several things from the posts of JL (and several others on this forum). I get the pleasure of seeing a human mind seeking to push back the boundaries of its understanding. I get the pleasure of seeing someone learn something. I get the pleasure of seeing that person wanting to share his or her knowledge with others. I admire the courage of those who are willing to put their own 'strange' thoughts and ideas 'out there' at the risk of being ridiculed. I get a certain degree of confirmatiion of my own notions from people who have arrived at a similar place to me but via a completely different route. (Many paths, one Truth and all that).
Indeed, when you use the collection of symbols "hunger" what you are referring to does NOT have shape because it's a concept!
If it is a concept, it is one which can kill me. To me the word 'hunger' is an umbrella-term or shorthhand used to describe the effects of a group of related physiological changes in my body. My alchemical stomach requires more matter to transform.
You may see this as verbose and pedantic but you are committing the very same errors I am striving to eliminate.
I have no errors - I am what I am and I do what I do. I do not measure myself against your standards (or anyone elses for that matter).
On this forum there are people from various countries around the world, young and old, male and female, discussing various topics, with various levels of agreement. By and large they appear to be able to communicate with each other, even when discussing complex questions or issues. Now suddenly up pops yourself 'striving to eliminate' this or insisting on defining that. You have opened several threads where you have got nowhere (for comparison see the lengths of some of the threads Junglelord has opened). To my recollection, in none of your threads have you addressed or even mentioned anything related to the EU or the Saturn Theory. Nor can I recall seeing your name in any of the existing EU topics and threads. But still things must be done your way because only your way is scientific and unambiguous; only you have the correct definitions and methodology.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

### Re: Casting Out Nines, Structure and Function of Real Numbers

Just how consistent can it be if it changes over time or geographical location?
-GC

The system I created in my first post is 100% consistent. Different people have different systems at different locations and times. However, for ONE system to have any meaning it must be consistent. You are confusing the internal structure of a single system of concepts with the comparison between different conceptual frameworks. Again, it does not matter at all what system any culture used as long as it was self (internally) consistent i.e. it does not contradict itself, violate identity, etc.

I am not an adherent to "modern philosophy". In fact, I had practically 0 philosophy background before coming to this forum. I am merely an individual who seeks non self-contradiction and to avoid logical blunders and absurd statements. It's easy to make these mistakes and not even realize it because casual language is so taken for granted. I don't care what's philosophically fashionable. I care about being able to perceive, communicate, and think rationally and consistently.

I recognize the name "Nietsche" as an existentialist I believe. My fiancee took an existentialism course so she talked about him some. I'm a big fan of Albert Camus, "The Stranger" is probably my favorite book of all time. I read it in high school and it changed my life.
If it is a concept, it is one which can kill me. To me the word 'hunger' is an umbrella-term or shorthhand used to describe the effects of a group of related physiological changes in my body. My alchemical stomach requires more matter to transform.
-GC

In accordance with the set of internally consistent rules of communication I set up, which you may or may not care about, this is wrong. "Hunger" does not kill you anymore than "love" makes you walk toward a man/woman. It is exactly as you said, a word that refers to a relationship among entities in your body, a shorthand. A relationship cannot perform an action, distance/love/justice/linear cannot run, jump, swim, or kill. What actually "kills you" is very complicated to explain in terms of entities alone so in casual conversation we simply say "hunger killed him". Even the phrase "kills you" is conceptual. The universe is so complicated that, in casual conversation, we convert most concepts into objects for the sake of simplicity. However if one is discussing matters that s/he cares about, it behooves him/her to be as consistent as possible to prevent absurdity, reification, logical blunders, and miscommunication.
But still things must be done your way because only your way is scientific and unambiguous; only you have the correct definitions and methodology.
-GC

I came here without a good set of definitions but have since resolved the issues with the help of some on this forum. You say that people on this forum "communicate well". Unfortunately they do not, and they are not much different than people on practically every physics forum. The sad pathetic state of science today is a result of peoples' delusion that they do know what they are talking about when they do not. If you examine exchanges carefully and objectively, you will see that most of the time no real communication takes place. No one is actually learning anything. I know we've had a bit of back and forth but I'm getting to know you better and I believe that, if you take this seriously, we can come to agreement. That's assuming you DO indeed care about things like internal consistency, avoiding absurdity, etc. (which you seem to on the whole).

In the end, as you agreed with me on, these "shorthand terms" do refer to something specific. The Greeks had a different system than us but it still worked. They could say "Bring me a block of stone, then bring me a block of stone, then bring me a block of stone" to refer to what we would use the phrase "bring me 3 blocks of stone" to refer to (or whatever it is in Greek). As you said, they built the Parthenon this way. Their system was internally consistent, that's why it worked. In the end it was a shorthand to refer to an entity, group of entities, or a relationship among entities. If they defined entity as "that which has shape and location" then their shorthands referred to objects and mean something. They refer to blocks of stone, pieces of cheese, etc. Anything with shape can be visualized or felt. If they did not define "entity" this way then what were their shorthands referring to? "Something" without shape? Were they carrying shapeless blocks? Did they build a shapeless Parthenon out of shapeless blocks? No, they did not, their shorthands referred to concrete objects (somethings with shape and location). They can teach you their system because they can show you what they are referring to. This tells us that, at the end of the day, shorthands all refer to something(s) and not nothing(s). I object to JL because it appears his theory is based on nothings, i.e. he cannot show us the objects that, at the end of the day, his shorthands must refer to (if his shorthands do not refer to something they must refer to nothing). Credit where it's due, he has shown a gyroscope. But this is not a theory by itself, it is just one object. He proposes that mass is a 2-D string, but a 2-D string cannot exist. Not only does it violate my definition but it violates anyone's common sense. You can perform a thought experiment. Imagine a 2-D entity, there it is. Now rotate it slowly. One of two things will happen. Either A) At some point it will disappear or B) it will indeed have width and it was not actually 2-D to begin with. If it's A) then the object certainly cannot exist because something cannot come from nothing or vice versa (identity axiom) and if it's B) then the object was actually 3-D.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests