UDA for Dummies

This is the place to discuss Salvia divinorum, splendins, and the other psychoactive salvias.
User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by burningmouth » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:07 am

salvialover24 wrote: Have you grasp that the after-life question becomes more hard that in the Aristotelian picture? And this says something. Civilizations always correspond to a conception of afterlife. OK?
I really don't care about the afterlife. To me, contemplating about the afterlife is an activity for the ego.

The knowledge that my body is composed of atoms isn't going to alter the fact that my body will one day die and decompose. The atoms will flitter away and my mind will probably go back to where it was before I was born, which if the Buddhists are correct, is some(place) non-dual. If UD says that we are all immortal, then UD might be a contradiction of Mahayanist thought (unless immortality is samsaric/conventional thinking).

Is there an "AHA" moment associated with UD's understanding of the afterlife? If there is, then SL is probably the only person on earth who has experienced it.

If someone who had never smoked salvia extract asked me what the visuals are like, I could say, "Well, you might see hyperdimensional wheels and interconnecting peoploids". And then after giving him some extract, he might be able to see those very same hyperdimensional wheels and interconnecting peoploids. In other words, I can convey to him a previously totally unknown experience.

Can SL24 convey to me an "AHA" moment inherent in the realization of how integers create parallel worlds (and perhaps immortality)?

I'm running out of questions. I am the monk seeking enlightenment, and you, SL24, are the UD Master...................
Image

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by salvialover24 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:48 am

burningmouth wrote:
I really don't care about the afterlife. To me, contemplating about the afterlife is an activity for the ego.
Very often.
And "after-life" is a wordy expression related to the spiritual realm, so it can have connotations related to humans' possible misunderstanding.

You refer frequently to parallel realities. With computationalism, there is a relation between those "realities" and after-life (and/or pre-life, else-life, etc). Don't take this for granted, just keep this possibility in mind. Exclude nothing a priori, until you get the personal understanding.
To grasp UDA, I mean to swallow it and digest it, you might consider that the separation of science and religion is erroneous, and probably done for human special interest purpose. That separation makes science and religion both inexact and inhuman, I think.

burningmouth wrote: The knowledge that my body is composed of atoms isn't going to alter the fact that my body will one day die and decompose.
You mean "the belief" that 1) you have a body, 2) that the body is made of atom.
That are beliefs. They might be true, they might be false. Such type of belief are always hypothetical, and often just temporary.
In particular once you will grasp the UD Argument, you will understand that the belief in "real" bodies and atoms is NOT compatible with the belief in Mechanism.
Unfortunately, today, "mechanism" is used by materialist (believer in atoms and matter, bodies) to hide the mind-body problem, but if there is no flaw in UDA, you might grasp that this does not work. Mechanism can help to formulate the problem and acknowledge our scientific ignorance in the subject.
burningmouth wrote: The atoms will flitter away and my mind will probably go back to where it was before I was born, which if the Buddhists are correct, is some(place) non-dual. If UD says that we are all immortal, then UD might be a contradiction of Mahayanist thought (unless immortality is samsaric/conventional thinking).
I will never pretend to any truth in the matter. But show you the place where you were before you were born, *assuming¨Mechanism.
I am not sure now which contradiction you see between Mechanism and Mahayana.
Also, UD says nothing. It is just a program which do something. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. UDA is a name of an argument: the Universal Dovetailer Argument. In a nutshell; the argument shows that if we are machine then the physical reality is an illusion. This is comparable with Mahayana. What makes you think that with the Mahayana some people are mortal? I don't see that, and if you attribute some thought to someone, or to some school of thought, I will ask you to give reference. t seems to me that the Mahayana consider that eventually all creature get the last and complete enlightenment. Again, an expression like immortality might have connotations which are hard to associate with such ultimate enlightenment. In comparative theologies, there is an intrinsic problem of vocabulary.
burningmouth wrote: Is there an "AHA" moment associated with UD's understanding of the afterlife?
Yes. With "aha" being just understanding. Normally you should understand that IF we assume comp, then afterlife is not a option. It is just a logical consequence. The people who get the understanding usually are NOT glad, and like with salvia, just want to forget it, especially if they did have some strong prejudices on this. In fact comp (mechanism) entails a very large variety of afterlife, from new birth, or backtracking in your current life, to the going outside the cycle of death and life. Some form of immortality might depend on what you identify with. It is everything but simple.
burningmouth wrote: If there is, then SL is probably the only person on earth who has experienced it.
No. This has been well understood (but not well tasted) by basically all scientists dong their job. There is nothing magical, and the work can be formalized in arithmetic (and has been formalized, which really means that all universal machine can "grasp" it, in some weak and reasonable sense of "grasp"). No the scientific community is slow. It can take centuries for digesting something new, or new with respect to the current paradigm, which since 1500 years is Aristotelian. One scientist who got the "aha", was unable to sleep for more than one week. Despite having asked to me to make it into a PhD thesis, he has become an opponents, and has become rather irrational. Sometimes I feel guilty about that, and I am not always sure people are spiritually mature enough to stay cold on that subject matter.
burningmouth wrote: If someone who had never smoked salvia extract asked me what the visuals are like, I could say, "Well, you might see hyperdimensional wheels and interconnecting peoploids". And then after giving him some extract, he might be able to see those very same hyperdimensional wheels and interconnecting peoploids. In other words, I can convey to him a previously totally unknown experience.
What if he saw apodimensional wheels instead? But he will call them "hyperdimensional" as you call them. So how will you know the difference between the experience?
This is an old problem, which is not specific to salvia. What if you see the red things yellow. But your mother told you that what you see yellow is called red, so that you will use the word "red" for what you see as "yellow".
You don't communicate totally unknown experience, you just can hope to make them lived by people sufficiently similar to you.
That is why in science we use the axiomatic method (or variants) to make it possible to reason, independently of any personal interpretation or meaning that we associate to any word. Here logicians have been tremendously succesful, but unfortunately, their discoveries are understood only by them. Logic is unknown by most scientists, or worst, misunderstood, including by some important scientists who have aggravated the abysse between logicians and other scientists, notably physicists. Science is still in the "prehistorical phase": we brag a lot on interdisciplanirity, but in the facts, we just keep killing the diplomats.
burningmouth wrote: Can SL24 convey to me an "AHA" moment inherent in the realization of how integers create parallel worlds (and perhaps immortality)?
Actually I thought you were close. But your tone (in some post above) indicates me that you might not have.
It is not so simple, as I am thinking without words, but with a lot of image and diagrams, which are difficult to do in linear texts. See below. I give you an exercise.
burningmouth wrote: I'm running out of questions. I am the monk seeking enlightenment, and you, SL24, are the UD Master...................
Image
[/quote]

Lol. And quite nice gif.

Try to do this: explain me how I could die in case

1) comp or mechanism is true
2) There is a physical universe, and there is a concrete Universal Dovetailing in that universe.

Hint: take into account each of the six steps of the UDA, which you seem to have grasped. Normally, you will, for any explanation of how I could die, you will contradict one of the preceding six steps. This should help you to understand how the integers create the parallel "worlds", or better, "dreams".

If you can solve that problem, then it will mean that we have to to the step 8, and/or to do a bit of computer science, to see why and how the integers (or equivalent) "create" the "parallel realities".

User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by burningmouth » Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:02 pm

salvialover24 wrote: I am not sure now which contradiction you see between Mechanism and Mahayana.
Also, UD says nothing. It is just a program which do something. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. UDA is a name of an argument: the Universal Dovetailer Argument. In a nutshell; the argument shows that if we are machine then the physical reality is an illusion. This is comparable with Mahayana. What makes you think that with the Mahayana some people are mortal? I don't see that, and if you attribute some thought to someone, or to some school of thought, I will ask you to give reference. t seems to me that the Mahayana consider that eventually all creature get the last and complete enlightenment. Again, an expression like immortality might have connotations which are hard to associate with such ultimate enlightenment. In comparative theologies, there is an intrinsic problem of vocabulary.
One of the difficulties a Western reader has with Nagarjuna is that the
Mulamadhyamakakarika is based on classical Indian, rather than Western logic.
Western logical traditions see only two possibilities in an argument — truth or
falsity. It may try to prove another truth through negation. For example, if a car is not red, it must be some other colour. Indian traditions use four positions: true
(not false), false (not true), both true and false, and neither true nor false
(prasanga or tetralemma). Needless to say, this form of argumentation is difficult
for a Western reader used to a completely different line of reasoning. However,
Nagarjuna goes even one step further, basically arguing, “None of the above”,
leaving the reader with nowhere to go and nothing to grasp. Nagarjuna used
negation not to prove another viewpoint or truth but to negate all viewpoints. He
thereby destroyed all logical arguments or speculation about Ultimate reality,
denying the inherent existence of any such ‘reality’.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... arjuna.pdf

I would say that both mortality and immortality are false, and that the truth lies beyond them. If the physical universe is an illusion, then why can't mechanism also be an illusion? Can non-duality coexist with inherently dualistic integers? Maybe it can. I don't know.
salvialover24 wrote: You mean "the belief" that 1) you have a body, 2) that the body is made of atom.
That are beliefs. They might be true, they might be false. Such type of belief are always hypothetical, and often just temporary.
In particular once you will grasp the UD Argument, you will understand that the belief in "real" bodies and atoms is NOT compatible with the belief in Mechanism.
Yes, they are beliefs. I live my life in the mundane world of beliefs. I believe that I will die and my body will decompose. I don't believe in levitation or the Easter bunny. Apparently, mechanism believes in the existence of the Easter bunny ( somewhere out there). Maybe the Easter bunny exists somewhere as a long string of integers, but that seems irrelevant to my existence in this mundane, (so called) material world.

My major problem with salvia extract is that it only lasts 5 minutes. 24/7 is a lot longer than 5 minutes. I'm not satisfied with allowing ordinary reality to rule over us. I was hoping that salvia reality could somehow intervene into our world. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the world as it is -- a world apparently composed of atoms existing in a giant physical cosmos. I could tell myself that salvia reality is the true reality, but that doesn't negate the glaring fact that this everyday, ordinary world rules supreme.

This is how my first person POV sees the world around me. It's a painfully ordered and rational world out there. The doppelgangers are invisible -- along with the elves and fairies. Until they can merge with the mundane, they are irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but it is ultimately dissatisfying.
I can't escape into non-duality.
My only escape is TV, fast food, sugary drinks and masterbation....preferably in that order.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by salvialover24 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:04 am

burningmouth wrote:
salvialover24 wrote: I am not sure now which contradiction you see between Mechanism and Mahayana.
Also, UD says nothing. It is just a program which do something. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. UDA is a name of an argument: the Universal Dovetailer Argument. In a nutshell; the argument shows that if we are machine then the physical reality is an illusion. This is comparable with Mahayana. What makes you think that with the Mahayana some people are mortal? I don't see that, and if you attribute some thought to someone, or to some school of thought, I will ask you to give reference. t seems to me that the Mahayana consider that eventually all creature get the last and complete enlightenment. Again, an expression like immortality might have connotations which are hard to associate with such ultimate enlightenment. In comparative theologies, there is an intrinsic problem of vocabulary.
One of the difficulties a Western reader has with Nagarjuna is that the
Mulamadhyamakakarika is based on classical Indian, rather than Western logic.
Western logical traditions see only two possibilities in an argument — truth or
falsity. It may try to prove another truth through negation. For example, if a car is not red, it must be some other colour. Indian traditions use four positions: true
(not false), false (not true), both true and false, and neither true nor false
(prasanga or tetralemma). Needless to say, this form of argumentation is difficult
for a Western reader used to a completely different line of reasoning. However,
Nagarjuna goes even one step further, basically arguing, “None of the above”,
leaving the reader with nowhere to go and nothing to grasp. Nagarjuna used
negation not to prove another viewpoint or truth but to negate all viewpoints. He
thereby destroyed all logical arguments or speculation about Ultimate reality,
denying the inherent existence of any such ‘reality’.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... arjuna.pdf

I would say that both mortality and immortality are false, and that the truth lies beyond them. If the physical universe is an illusion, then why can't mechanism also be an illusion? Can non-duality coexist with inherently dualistic integers? Maybe it can. I don't know.
To oppose western and eastern logic is a myth. Indians and Chinese knew classical logic, and knew, like computer scientist today, that there are many other logics. Most non classical logics can be handle with Aristotle modal logics, and at some point we can go in that direction. If you want study the consequence of computationalism, it is better to start from classical logic and elementary arithmetic, then, much later, we can try to find an arithmetical interpretation on Nagarjuna' non intuitive and enlightenment based non standard logic. In a nutshell, we can model the assertion of p by a modal operator []p, and what Nagarjuna expressed can be retrieved from []p & ~[]p, []~p & []p, []~p & []p, []~p & ~[]p.
With the modal operator [] having some arithmetical interpretation, like some machine believes p.
If not we will just be starting from what we don't understand, and we will be able to say basically what we want, and fall in the usual wishful thinking.
There is noting wrong with Nagarjuna, but there is nothing wrong with classical logic either, and to understand the consequence of computationalism, it is better to start from proposition we can agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. Comp is the statement that we can survive, integrally (not seing any difference) when getting a digital brain transplant. This is either true or false, and from this, and elementary arithmetic, and the usual definition of belief and knowledge, we can derive the physical laws, and test in that way, by comparing with nature, the degree of plausibility of the mechanist or computationalist assumption.
If not we do "conventional literary" philosophy, which relativizes everything, and provide no clues at all, leading to arbitrary proposition, like "God is a white man with a bird living on a cloud" to "it is the fault to homsexual or to jewish" or to "drugs are dangerous", or whatever.
The idea that we *can* abandon rigor in the human sciences, in the name of freedom, is an artificial construct by people who just want to steal your money, if not to control you entirely. I think.

burningmouth wrote:
salvialover24 wrote: You mean "the belief" that 1) you have a body, 2) that the body is made of atom.
That are beliefs. They might be true, they might be false. Such type of belief are always hypothetical, and often just temporary.
In particular once you will grasp the UD Argument, you will understand that the belief in "real" bodies and atoms is NOT compatible with the belief in Mechanism.
Yes, they are beliefs. I live my life in the mundane world of beliefs. I believe that I will die and my body will decompose.
OK. But are you ready to accept that such belief might appear to be wrong? Or that they might appear to be locally true, but globally wrong? It is the point of the UD argument. You said in a earlier post that you were OK with the idea that the ultimate reality might be arithmetical, but this is part of what will make such mundane belief being wrong, or globally wrong. The goal is to obtain a coherent picture of the "whole", not island of ready answer for particular situations.
Nobody forces you, and I cannot handle the interest of other people, but you seem both eager to learn something, but also a bit blasé about anything which could be derived from an assumption. I might develop a feeling that you are perhaps not so much interested in the truth or search for it. I have no problem with this, but it looks like you have conflicting attractions. I cannot evaluate if those conflicts are genuine, or just are just reflecting your mood or some possible lack of trust in your capabilities.

burningmouth wrote: I don't believe in levitation or the Easter bunny. Apparently, mechanism believes in the existence of the Easter bunny ( somewhere out there). Maybe the Easter bunny exists somewhere as a long string of integers, but that seems irrelevant to my existence in this mundane, (so called) material world.
But it is not by the UD Argument. It shows not just that the Easter bunny exists, but it gives the its shape, length, and the probability you meet it the next second, when alive, when near death, and after. The quantum facts shows also that the Easter bunny exists, and apparently the probability of meeting it is low, at least when alive, and not under the influence of a brain perturbation. So we can compare the factual easter bunny and the computationalist one, and so we can figure out the plausibility of comp and its (platonist) consequences.
may be you have not just grasped the passage from step 6 and step 7.

burningmouth wrote: My major problem with salvia extract is that it only lasts 5 minutes. 24/7 is a lot longer than 5 minutes. I'm not satisfied with allowing ordinary reality to rule over us. I was hoping that salvia reality could somehow intervene into our world. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the world as it is -- a world apparently composed of atoms existing in a giant physical cosmos. I could tell myself that salvia reality is the true reality, but that doesn't negate the glaring fact that this everyday, ordinary world rules supreme.
Albert Camus wrote a book "L'homme révolté", where he describes that kind of revolution-spirit against the whole creation. That's the human condition. We don't choose the reality we are in. What counts for you is what you will do from it. Is it already not marvellous that you can dring water when thirsty, eat bread when hungry, smoke salvia when spiritually hungry? Then you can work on what could be ameliorated, like going toward being able to smoke pot when being sick, for example, or how reform the math education so that the human science can benefit too, etc.
There are many things you can do, especially that you seem talented in writing. I suspect that your revolt about the mundane world is a revolt against yourself, probably itself related to the hardness of your present condition, perhaps education, or curriculum, as I understood you have a job problem.
burningmouth wrote: This is how my first person POV sees the world around me. It's a painfully ordered and rational world out there. The doppelgangers are invisible -- along with the elves and fairies. Until they can merge with the mundane, they are irrelevant.
They do merge with the mundane, but if you dislike the mundane too much you will not develop the eyesight to see them. Then the mundane is not that important, in the big picture, but only the mundane can bring things like salvia, brains, and other means to go out of the mundane. Hmm, you really look like you are in the "forget state" that salvia imposes on us to come back here, just to avoid looking like a poison or a mean of suicide. Rational, also is not opposed to mysticism, even if, alas, this is what our obscurantist era want make us to believe. Take it easy, try to be more patient, perhaps.
burningmouth wrote: There's nothing wrong with speculation, but it is ultimately dissatisfying.
Science is only speculation. With comp, life is itself nature's speculation: as we are ourselves divine but hypothetical beings. Even matter becomes numbers' speculation. You are dissatisfied, because the grass is always greener somewhere else, apparently. But that's a phantasm. We have to accept reality to build other realities. There are no simple recipe for happiness, but a part of it comes from some acceptance, and letting it go, with or without the help of plants of friends. Well, preferably with.
burningmouth wrote: I can't escape into non-duality.
If you convince yourself that you can't, then you can't.
If you convince yourself that you can, then you can't.
If you stop to worry about can and can't, then you can.
burningmouth wrote: My only escape is TV, fast food, sugary drinks and masterbation....preferably in that order.
There is no real problem with TV, fast food, sugary drinks and masturbation, in that order or in any order. The problem might rely in trying to use those things for escaping perhaps. I wish I could help, but only you can handle the commands. In this thread I am suppose to answer question on the UDA, and comp's consequences, but you might be stuck in the "escape" spirit. Normally salvia should be better than logic for this, unless you forget yourself enough to let the beauty of logic open your mind. As a math teacher I have come to believe that obstacles on the path are constructions made by the ego, and that only the ego can put those obstacles away. I think it is the same for enlightenment. The only possible and eventually gratifying escape is the escape from the escaping idea.

You might find some help in the book by Brian Hines "Return to the One, Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization".
http://www.amazon.com/Return-One-Plotin ... 0977735214

User avatar
WOND3RBOY
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:30 am

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by WOND3RBOY » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:52 am

salvialover24 wrote: UD says nothing. It is just a program which does something. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. UDA is a name of an argument: the Universal Dovetailer Argument. In a nutshell; the argument shows that if we are machine then the physical reality is an illusion. This is comparable with Mahayana. What makes you think that with the Mahayana some people are mortal? I don't see that, and if you attribute some thought to someone, or to some school of thought, I will ask you to give reference. It seems to me that the Mahayana consider that eventually all creature get the last and complete enlightenment. Again, an expression like immortality might have connotations which are hard to associate with such ultimate enlightenment. In comparative theologies, there is an intrinsic problem of vocabulary.

Albert Camus wrote a book "L'homme révolté", where he describes that kind of revolution-spirit against the whole creation. That's the human condition. We don't choose the reality we are in. What counts for you is what you will do from it. Is it already not marvelous that you can drink water when thirsty, eat bread when hungry, smoke salvia when spiritually hungry? Then you can work on what could be ameliorated, like going toward being able to smoke pot when being sick, for example, or how reforming math education so that the human science can benefit too, etc. In this thread I am supposed to answer question on the UDA, and comp's consequences, but you might be stuck in the "escape" spirit. Normally salvia should be better than logic for this, unless you forget yourself enough to let the beauty of logic open your mind. As a math teacher I have come to believe that obstacles on the path are constructions made by the ego, and that only the ego can put those obstacles away. I think it is the same for enlightenment. The only possible and eventually gratifying escape is the escape from the escaping idea.

Rational, also is not opposed to mysticism, even if, alas, this is what our obscurantist era want make us to believe.
Science is only speculation. With comp, life is itself nature's speculation: as we are ourselves divine but hypothetical beings. Even matter becomes numbers' speculation. You are dissatisfied, because the grass is always greener somewhere else, apparently. But that's a phantasm. We have to accept reality to build other realities. There is no simple recipe for happiness, but a part of it comes from some acceptance, and letting it go, with or without the help of plants of friends. Well, preferably with.

You might find some help in the book by Brian Hines "Return to the One, Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization".
http://www.amazon.com/Return-One-Plotin ... 0977735214
Edited for clarity

User avatar
minderbinder
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:18 pm

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by minderbinder » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:40 am

this sounds too intriguing so i have to ask - is this about oswald spengler? or united dentists agency, united dance association, ulster defence association?


edit:************************* oh, i see ... is there still a link/backup/pdf/what ever of/to the original thread?
Bhagwan told me not to worry. If i do it'll make me sorry. Alright.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by salvialover24 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:53 am

Thanks for the edition, WOND3RBOY.

minderbinder, the original thread was KEDABRA simulation thread, you can find it below. Followed by threads UDA 0, UDA 1, UDA 3, ... where I try to expose the first one half part of an argument showing that IF we take seriously enough the idea that we are (digital) machines, then in a nutshell, we can refute Aristotle metaphysics according, to be short, that the physical reality is the basic fundamental reality. Like in biology, the species have evolved, the physical reality itself is womething which evolves, in a non physical space, precisely by a differentiating consciousness flux determined by all the numbers' dreams (computations seen from inside). This is testable, as this makes the whole of physics (but not geography!) a branch of arithmetic, but we get the reason why reality is much bigger than what we observe and measure. UDA is for Universal Dovetailer Argument and is explained for example here:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/public ... tract.html

Or a not to bad exposition here:

http://clubofsc.blogspot.be/2011/08/my- ... ument.html

When some people eventually grasp the Universal Dovetailer Argument, they often react a bit like a some people after a salvia experience: like "I wish not have realizing this", so I am intrigued and interested in the opinion of salvianauts. I compare with SWIM's experiences (many), and with SWIY's, and reports and books.

Then Burning bumped the subject. Also, I promised KEDABRA to do the step 8, although the first seven steps are quite enough to get the idea. Step three is the basic discovery, which is very simple, I think. I got it a long time ago by looking at self-reproducing paramecia, and identifying myself with them.

Feel free to ask any question, or to remain silent. There is certainly a question of metaphysical taste, and some people can react badly to the rational metaphysical vertigo, despite it derives his stances from hypotheses, and is open to some possible refutation of the hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is that the brain, or whatever is needed for consciousness to manifest itself, can be emulated by a universal machines (discovered by Turing and Post and other mathematicians of the 20th century, and which gives birth to computers, which incarnates them).
That is the hypothesis, and the conclusion is that in the field of theology, Plato is less wrong than Aristotle. In that case. The physical reality would be the shadow we see in the cave. In a sense. It is better to understand this by oneself. This leads also to many questions, tuns of open problems, and show mainly how far we are ignorant in those matter.

User avatar
minderbinder
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:18 pm

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by minderbinder » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:42 am

Hi there - thanks a lot!

I remember that thread from entheogen.com, what i don't remember is why i didn't follow it then ...
Bhagwan told me not to worry. If i do it'll make me sorry. Alright.

User avatar
minderbinder
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:18 pm

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by minderbinder » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:52 pm

after googling around on this i came upon some equations which reminded me of omething which fascinates me without end, too, and from which i also do not understand a single word: is there a link between this and Spencer Brown's Laws of Form? If anybody here could provide me with some enlightning words on that, too, i'd really be happy!
Bhagwan told me not to worry. If i do it'll make me sorry. Alright.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: UDA for Dummies

Post by salvialover24 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:46 am

You are not the first one to see a link with Spencer Brown, but his approach is too much formal for me, and I have not yet been able to single out if there is a genuine link. I am open to the idea.
I use the more standard theory of self-reference coming from logic and computer science (Gödel, notably). Open problem, let us say.
Louis Kauffman found relation between knot theory and Spencer Brown, though. But there too, the similarity is too much formal to me.

Post Reply