The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Donn]

If you think in terms of Geometry, then constant c² is an area and a² or b² are changed by inverse proportionality w.r.t each other from 0 up to c².

Okay, there's a faint light down yonder tunnel shed by bruto's post. You are saying that in order to keep c² constant, you have to play a and b off each other; one goes up, the other down.

The problem is that you are forcing c² to be constant. This is artificial constancy.

 

[doronshadmi]

oppss...

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

C is chosen arbitrarily

Ok, let us follow your line by not defining the constant area as the sum of the two other areas.

Also in this case there is a constant area and two other areas that are changeable w.r.t it.

But if the constant area is not the sum of the two other areas, we arbitrarily exclude the case that one of the sides has zero length.

So, if we are talking on being arbitrary, I prefer not to exclude the case that one of the sides has zero length,
exactly as I prefer not to exclude 0 = 0 as a possible result of D1*W1 = D2*W2, which means that at least one of the values on each side is 0 and the other values on each side can be chanced arbitrarily w.r.t them.

Actually, being arbitrary is not entirely a bad thing, we simply have to take in account the possible impacts on the results.

Moreover, we actually discover that a given system can be only unchanged (in equilibrium) but this is not the case about our universe.

 

[Donn]

Being arbitrary, in the Pythagoras case, is forcing your example of "constant" onto a formula that does not need it.

Also, if either side goes to 0, you will have a line (y=mx+c, I think it was, but don't count on it) and not a triangle any more.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also, if either side goes to 0, you will have a line (y=mx+c, I think it was, but don't count on it) and not a triangle any more.

You are right, one of the possible results is also two equal areas on a single line, which is another example of how a given system can be only unchanged (in equilibrium), but this is not the case about our universe.

From a cosmological point of view, our universe is based on the unchanged (symmetry) that is turned into the changed (asymmetry, which is also known as Spontaneous symmetry breaking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking).

What I wish to say is that symmetry is more fundamental than asymmetry, but both of them are included in our universe.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:


Ok, let us follow your line by not defining the constant area as the sum of the two other areas.

Also in this case there is a constant area and two other areas that are changeable w.r.t it.

But if the constant area is not the sum of the two other areas, we arbitrarily exclude the case that one of the sides has zero length.

So, if we are talking on being arbitrary, I prefer not to exclude the case that one of the sides has zero length,
exactly as I prefer not to exclude 0 = 0 as a possible result of D1*W1 = D2*W2, which means that at least one of the values on each side is 0 and the other values on each side can be chanced arbitrarily w.r.t them.

Actually, being arbitrary is not entirely a bad thing, we simply have to take in account the possible impacts on the results.

Moreover, we actually discover that a given system can be only unchanged (in equilibrium) but this is not the case about our universe.

Let's correct what I wrote above, because it is wrong.

By not arbitrarily choose any specific values as a constant, and by observing our universe, we can't escape from the fact that the changed AND the unchanged are related to each other as its essential properties.

I arbitrarily choose (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem) the biggest area as the unchanged aspect, but as bruto, Slowvehicle and also Donn claimed, and I accept their claim, no specific value has to be chosen as constant in order to demonstrate the linkage among the unchanged AND the changed.

So thank you for your patience with me, about this case.

It is simply easier and more intuitive to maintain the equation as C^2 = A^2 + B^2 than to demonstrate the exactly equivalent equation of A^2= C^2 - B^2.

I agree with you, after all an equation is an equation, but it does not contradict the fact that the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties of our universe.

 

[bruto]

I appreciate that last post.

I still maintain that whatever one considers to be the essential properties of the universe is a matter, essentially, of metaphysics, and while I do not count it quite as useless as the Positivists might, I do count it irrelevant to the mechanical principles that can explain and predict things and events without it.

 

[Donn]

Ditto, with less sheer sophistication.

 

[doronshadmi]

I appreciate that last post.

Again, thank you for your patience.

I still maintain that whatever one considers to be the essential properties of the universe is a matter, essentially, of metaphysics, and while I do not count it quite as useless as the Positivists might, I do count it irrelevant to the mechanical principles that can explain and predict things and events without it.

Mechanical (micro\macro) principles are explained by the principle of formula where at least two sides are compared with each other.

Both equality or inequality are used in order to predict certain things, where some of the predictions can be found by one or few calculations (as often done at, what is called, macro level) and the others, by many repeated calculations (as often done at, what is called, micro level).

The Law Of Lever or The Pythagorean Theorem are both expressed by formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results, that are mostly used in order to solve things at the macro level.

Bell's inequality formula is an example of a tool that is used to predict things (at, what is called, micro level) by using many repeated calculations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem).

Modern Science can't define clear cut border between the micro and the macro, and also lots of efforts are done (only theoretically at this stage) in order to predict both QM and GRT results by one comprehensive theory.

The current most promising theoretical tool is M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory) but in order to be considered as useful, it still has to suggest experiments that at least predict measurable results (directly or indirectly), and currently M-Theory is not at that stage.

So currently we have GRT and QM as two successful frameworks that are supported by many successful experiments and accurate predicted results, but they still "don't talk" with each other by one scientific comprehensive framework.

I disagree that the will to define such scientific comprehensive framework has to titled as Meta-physics.

Moreover, I predict that such scientific comprehensive framework will be able to understand and use GRT and QM in more profound and useful ways, which will help to design better long term conditions for the survival and the development of life phenomena.

In other words, I claim that such comprehensive framework actually enables to scientifically define and use the linkage among macro and micro constants and use it in order to design much better conditions for the development of life phenomena.

Furthermore, I claim that better linkage among macro and micro constants enables better linkage among the observed, the observer and the tool of observation, as a natural result of practical use of comprehensive scientific framework.

Exactly as any area in the The Pythagorean Theorem can be used as constant w.r.t the two other areas, so is the case about brain's mental aspect, it can be used as a constant w.r.t brain's physical aspects, which helps to develop better physical correlations which are life supporting.

TM is such mental technique, and by using it correctly (which means, no arbitrary approach is used during the practice) and also develop its impacts beyond the particular space\time of practicing, one enables to expand the effects on what is called physical reality.

In other words, I don't think that it is a wise thing to completely reject http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

As much as I know, no real scientific research can be developed without the linkage among the constant and the non-constant.

I'll appreciate some example of real scientific research that is done without any constant or without any non-constant.

For example, this is what I have found so far https://www.google.co.il/?gws_rd=ssl#q="science+without+constants" or http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?hl=en&q="science+without+constants"&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=.

 

[doronshadmi]

I appreciate that last post.

I actually appreciate your help also from the following aspect:

What you did is exactly what is learned by TM, which means, never look at a given subject form a constant_only or from a non-costant_only point of view.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I actually appreciate your help also from the following aspect:

What you did is exactly what is learned by TM, which means, never look at a given subject form a constant_only or from a non-costant_only point of view.

...then why bother with TM?

And how does that demonstrate "higher consciousness"?

 

[doronshadmi]

...then why bother with TM?

And how does that demonstrate "higher consciousness"?

According to TM, the first step of higher consciousness is called restful alertness, which means an improved correlation between the constant AND the non-constant, such that one's consciousness is aware to its calm (constant) aspect in addition to its active (non-constant) aspect.

The advantage of such state of mind, is the ability to be aware of any possible mental activity, no matter how fine it is, and by practicing this ability you actually improve your self-control over your own mental activity.

What is called regular consciousness is one's awareness only to its active aspect, such that finer mental activities are not known ("slip off the radar").

My mistake about The Pythagorean Theorem was that I was focused about its constant aspect according to a particular side (the hypotenuse, in this case) which is equivalent to the mistake of thinking about the calm state of mind (which is actually some active state of mind), instead of being actually at calm state of mind.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ditto, with less sheer sophistication.

Thank you Donn.

 

[Slowvehicle]

According to TM, the first step of higher consciousness is called restful alertness, which means an improved correlation between the constant AND the non-constant, such that one's consciousness is aware to its calm (constant) aspect in addition to its active (non-constant) aspect.

The advantage of such state of mind, is the ability to be aware of any possible mental activity, no matter how fine it is, and by practicing this ability you actually improve your self-control over your own mental activity.

What is called regular consciousness is one's awareness only to its active aspect, such that finer mental activities are not known ("slip off the radar").

My mistake about The Pythagorean Theorem was that I was focused about its constant aspect according to a particular side (the hypotenuse, in this case) which is equivalent to the mistake of thinking about the calm state of mind (which is actually some active state of mind), instead of being actually at calm state of mind.

Ah. I see.

I need TM to reach a state only TM claims exists, by methods unique to TM; a state where I will have the clarity of consciousness to construct incorrect and inappositive metaphors (and communicate those metaphors murkily) about things I understand correctly without the misleading interference of TM.

With all due respect, I will continue to calmly interact with the real universe through evidence-based inquiry.

 

[doronshadmi]

I need TM to reach a state only TM claims exists, by methods unique to TM; a state where I will have the clarity of consciousness to construct incorrect and inappositive metaphors (and communicate those metaphors murkily) about things I understand correctly without the misleading interference of TM.

With all due respect, I will continue to calmly interact with the real universe through evidence-based inquiry.

My wrong metaphors did not change the fact that evidence-based inquiry can be done only if the constant AND the non-constant are involved, and being constant AND non-constant, is not unique to TM.

Now let's correct the metaphor as follows:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

The same principle (the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant) is also demonstrated by inequality formulas (for example Bell's inequality formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem), such that the constant aspect here is the inequality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the property of inequality w.r.t the involved values in both sides of the formula.

Moreover, The same principle (the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant) is also demonstrated by formulas that are used as a range between equality and inequality (for example, A < OR = B) , such that the constant aspect here is OR logical connective and the non-constant aspect is the range of values from being equal to being unequal (which is also demonstrated vice versa).

You are invited to use your clarity of consciousness in order to show that the constant AND the non-constant are not essential properties of A=B, A<B, A < OR = B types of formulas.

Moreover, you are invited to use your clarity of consciousness in order to show that my claim that the constant AND the non-constant is non-unique principle, is actually unique to TM.

Furthermore, you are actually invited to demonstrate that your clarity of consciousness has nothing to do with the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant.

 

[doronshadmi]

I wish to add that the two following main problems are actually solved by the general principle of the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant:

1. The Mind-Body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem).

2. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences).

 

[Slowvehicle]

My wrong metaphors did not change the fact that evidence-based inquiry can be done only if the constant AND the non-constant are involved, and being constant AND non-constant, is not unique to TM.

I am glad for you that you think this means something.

I am sad fo ryou that you think that TM is the reason it means something.

Now let's correct the metaphor as follows:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

I appreciate this trivial observation; I wonder if you realize that it is no more than a definition of an "equation"?

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

The same principle (the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant) is also demonstrated by inequality formulas (for example Bell's inequality formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem), such that the constant aspect here is the inequality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the property of inequality w.r.t the involved values in both sides of the formula.

Moreover, The same principle (the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant) is also demonstrated by formulas that are used as a range between equality and inequality (for example, A < OR = B) , such that the constant aspect here is OR logical connective and the non-constant aspect is the range of values from being equal to being unequal (which is also demonstrated vice versa).

You are invited to use your clarity of consciousness in order to show that the constant AND the non-constant are not essential properties of A=B, A<B, A < OR = B types of formulas.

Moreover, you are invited to use your clarity of consciousness in order to show that my claim that the constant AND the non-constant is non-unique principle, is actually unique to TM.

Furthermore, you are actually invited to demonstrate that your clarity of consciousness has nothing to do with the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant.

Once again, your "higher consciousness" has led you to attempt to reverse the onus probandi. Your claims, your onus.

It is up to you, making the claim, to clearly define what you mean by the "constant and the non constant".

It is up to you to demonstrate that the "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant" has to do with anyone's "clarity of consciousness" (for that matter, it is up to you to find, and demonstrate the existence of, "clarity of consciousness" in general).

And so on.

Ah, well--one's understanding should exceed one's imagery, else what's a metaphor?

I will read your support of your claims (particularly whenever it amounts to more than simply repeating your claims by linking to your own posts) with interest.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am glad for you that you think this means something.

I am sad fo ryou that you think that TM is the reason it means something.

TM is a simple mental technique that its usefulness is derived from the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant, and the same usefulness is shown in mathematical formulas, that are used to research also the physical reality.

I appreciate this trivial observation; I wonder if you realize that it is no more than a definition of an "equation"?

I wonder if you realize that I am not talking only on equations in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

It is up to you, making the claim, to clearly define what you mean by the "constant and the non constant".

This is exactly what have been done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, if you think otherwise, please express it in details.

Once again, your "higher consciousness" has led you to attempt to reverse the onus probandi. Your claims, your onus.

There is no "burden of proof" here, because I claim that the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant is an axiom, whether this axiom is discussed in terms of mental or physical aspects.

If you disagree that constant AND the non-constant is an axiom, than please express your disagreement in details.

Again, I'll appreciate some example of real scientific research that is done without any constant or without any non-constant (which means that the constant AND the non-constant is not an axiom).

For example, this is what I have found so far https://www.google.co.il/?gws_rd=ssl#q="science+without+constants" or http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?hl=en&q="science+without+constants"&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=.

You are invited to find a reliable source, that clearly demonstrates why the constant AND the non-constant is not an axiom.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant" has to do with anyone's "clarity of consciousness" (for that matter, it is up to you to find, and demonstrate the existence of, "clarity of consciousness" in general).

And so on.

You are invited to air your detailed view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

Also this time air your view in details about the following:

Moreover, you are invited to use your clarity of consciousness in order to show that my claim that the constant AND the non-constant is non-unique principle, is actually unique to TM.

Furthermore, you are actually invited to demonstrate that your clarity of consciousness has nothing to do with the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant.

 

[Slowvehicle]

TM is a simple mental technique that its usefulness is derived from the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant, and the same usefulness is shown in mathematical formulas, that are used to research also the physical reality.

Thank you kindly for this nesting set of unsupported assertions.

Perhaps you might consider offering support beyond linking to your own posts?

I wonder if you realize that I am not talking only on equations in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

Ah. I see. The "higher consciousness" is not limited to linear response. I was not, in fact, addressing that post, but the one I actually quoted. Your army of persons of straw, girded about with non-sequitur, under that windmill, continues to grow.

This is exactly what have been done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, if you think otherwise, please express it in details.

Well, no. Your own post, to which you link, is empty of definition. In detail, assertions are not definitions. Unsupported claims are not definitions. Quotinug your self is not support.

There is no "burden of proof" here, because I claim that the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant is an axiom, whether this axiom is discussed in terms of mental or physical aspects.

This merely demonstrates that your "higher consciousness" is a bit spotty on the meaning of "axiom".

If you disagree that constant AND the non-constant is an axiom, than please express your disagreement in details.

I have done so; you ignored it.

Feel free to start with any decent dictionary or lexicon; from there you might consider whether your bald assertions, particularly those with which multiple posters have taken issue, can be said in any way to be "widely accepted on their intrinsic merit", "generally accepted as true", or "self-evidently true".

Again, I'll appreciate some example of real scientific research that is done without any constant or without any non-constant (which means that the constant AND the non-constant is not an axiom).

Unless and until you define "the constant AND the non-constant" with at least a modicum of clarity and precision, this is as meaningless a challenge as would be requesting examples of scientific research that is done be resorting to the "higher consciousness".

You are asking for others to provide support for your claims (which is, in fact, a reversal of the onus); instead, consider providing actual examples of actual "real scientific research" dependent upon your own idiosyncratic concept of "the constant AND the non-constant".

For example, this is what I have found so far https://www.google.co.il/?gws_rd=ssl#q="science+without+constants"

Your link leads to a forum discussion wherein one poster, in 2005, offers the aphorism that "there is no science without constants". That assertion is the only appearance of the term at your link.

or http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?hl=en&q="science+without+constants"&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=.

...which leads to:

Your search - "science without constants" - did not match any articles.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Try your query on the entire web

Did you mis-type your link, or were you hoping no-one would follow it?

You are invited to find a reliable source, that clearly demonstrates why the constant AND the non-constant is not an axiom.

Given that you have not even begun to demonstrate that what you claim is an axiom is, in fact, an axiom, by the very definition of the term, it is not up to me (or anyone else) to demonstrate that what you claim is, is not. Rather, it is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is, is.

You are invited to air your detailed view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

I decline your passive-voice "invitation" to purchase, for $38, an article, the abstract of which does not appear to support any of your claims. Send me the article, and I will read it.

Also this time air your view in details about the following:

As I said before, in as much detail as necessary, you are making a claim--it is up to you to support it. Unless and until you clearly define your idea of the "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant", and demonstrate its existence and application, it is not up to me to demonstrate that what you have not defined and have not demonstrated does not, in fact, have the characteristics you have asserted for it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you kindly for this nesting set of unsupported assertions.

Perhaps you might consider offering support beyond linking to your own posts?



Ah. I see. The "higher consciousness" is not limited to linear response. I was not, in fact, addressing that post, but the one I actually quoted. Your army of persons of straw, girded about with non-sequitur, under that windmill, continues to grow.



Well, no. Your own post, to which you link, is empty of definition. In detail, assertions are not definitions. Unsupported claims are not definitions. Quotinug your self is not support.



This merely demonstrates that your "higher consciousness" is a bit spotty on the meaning of "axiom".



I have done so; you ignored it.

Feel free to start with any decent dictionary or lexicon; from there you might consider whether your bald assertions, particularly those with which multiple posters have taken issue, can be said in any way to be "widely accepted on their intrinsic merit", "generally accepted as true", or "self-evidently true".



Unless and until you define "the constant AND the non-constant" with at least a modicum of clarity and precision, this is as meaningless a challenge as would be requesting examples of scientific research that is done be resorting to the "higher consciousness".

You are asking for others to provide support for your claims (which is, in fact, a reversal of the onus); instead, consider providing actual examples of actual "real scientific research" dependent upon your own idiosyncratic concept of "the constant AND the non-constant".



Your link leads to a forum discussion wherein one poster, in 2005, offers the aphorism that "there is no science without constants". That assertion is the only appearance of the term at your link.



...which leads to:


Did you mis-type your link, or were you hoping no-one would follow it?



Given that you have not even begun to demonstrate that what you claim is an axiom is, in fact, an axiom, by the very definition of the term, it is not up to me (or anyone else) to demonstrate that what you claim is, is not. Rather, it is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is, is.



I decline your passive-voice "invitation" to purchase, for $38, an article, the abstract of which does not appear to support any of your claims. Send me the article, and I will read it.



As I said before, in as much detail as necessary, you are making a claim--it is up to you to support it. Unless and until you clearly define your idea of the "linkage among [sic] the constant AND the non-constant", and demonstrate its existence and application, it is not up to me to demonstrate that what you have not defined and have not demonstrated does not, in fact, have the characteristics you have asserted for it.

Slowvehicle, you simply can say that your disagreement about my claim (there is no science (mental or physical) without the linkage among the invariant (or constant) AND the variant (or non-constant)) is actually your axiom.

The problem is that you did not provide even a single evident which supports your axiom.