It shouldn’t be hard to show that language is a form of consensus mechanism that at least cannot be said to be much different than a telecommunications. Language it seems then would arise in relation to gravity (and the other universal parameters). There would then also necessarily be, in our language, an inherent fragmentation akin to our nationalistic perspectives that we seem to be clearly eventually outgrowing.
This fragmentation in our language is deceptive to our perception of it, as it pervades every aspect of our daily lives and especially in our expression of it through communication and thought.
Progress in our understating of this then should have implications both the physical makeup of the brain (and in relation to thought) and of our implementation of AI, and what the evolution of such technology should eventually seek to be.
It should be then possible for a “brain” to naturally arise with such qualities and insights, but then it depends on ones definition of causality and it’s relation to space time.
“Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, as well as, “On Dialogue” are two writings I think that will have a profound impact on the way see “this”. They are difficult to understand with fragmented conditioning but we can already look back not far in our humanity’s history and see we are shedding such conditioning. “On Dialogue” seems to me to address a time that is either very nearly before “AI” or very shortly after, sometime when humanity is able to think together, which is another of Krishnamuriti’s insight/teachings. (I purposefully don’t define what is AI here though )
About Pi etc, I think that ultimately it will be understood that we have begun to successfully understand and become aware of the universe through successive iteration and tangible physical evolution. Our understanding and accuracy in terms of “numbers” such as Pi seems at worst to correlate with our level of technology, and it seems we have developed this understanding through certain advances such as the great pyramids. I think then it would be quite easy to show Pi’s relation to gravity. I won’t comment on Mandelbrot stuff, but its probably just as interesting and relevant. The other way to say it I guess is that if gravity functioned differently in a different universe then it might necessarily effect pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by BTMA description of a thing is not the thing being described.
This is clever. I never understood or liked the word clever before but I have grown an appreciation for it. I do wonder, though, how far it can extend. Can the universe and/or it’s creation be “clever”?
If clever were a verb it would, as a rheomode, be “cleverant”, or possibly “re-cleverant” if we were to describe multiple re-birthing universes (or simply multiple universes since they should function above causal time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohm Wholeness and Implicate Order (Rheomodes)For example, consider the sentence ‘It is raining.’ Where is the ‘It’ that would, according to the sentence, be ‘the rainer that is doing the raining’? Clearly, it is more accurate to say: ‘Rain is going on.’
What comes to mind for me here is a word like “plurant”, but I think that main idea seems to be having words that do not imply an unnecessary division. And then this way there is implied the fact that “the description is not the described”. This fact was seemingly something that Bohm wanted to formulate in different ways; it is also a distinct insight that Krishnamurti explicitly gave dialog on. It is much like most would imagine in regards to “eastern philosophy”, but K was quite methodical and logical…it is clear to me Bohm felt this way about K as well.
This reminds me of the Nassim Haramein story, that people might like to copy in various ways, where he is a kid and asks to his teacher about the expanding universe something like “who is blowing in to it?” or along the lines of if something getting blown up then something else must be contracting. (everyone laughs because it seems “clever” given the fragmented paradigm (now I am thinking about Sarah Silverman’s TED talk)
Having language (and language should necessarily pervade our thoughts and perception) that can express things in an unfragmented way, or at least point out the current limits of our language (which seemingly always implies fragmentation), would give us a way of describing the universe (and/or beyond), without this problem/paradox Nassim points out.
I don’t mean to bring this up to “solve” our universe either, but rather it seems this is what Bohm wanted to open up, and the peoples of his time could not be open enough (wholistic) to understand him, but he and K left enough resources and material to put it together I think.
To me then this all spells out something interesting. Much of what is starting to seem like “tangible math” to me, I previously might have thought POSSIBLE, but basically thought it was the END of our search for what “this” is. Now I see that we can probably, in the near future, define universes and in a general form, and by understanding such a higher view we might be able to perfectly peg down what is our own universe (and others’).
And then if we understand language has a relation to universal parameters such as gravity (which is just a certain cross section or perspective itself) then we should be able to trust some aspects of the evolution of words (which I never used to). What might be interesting then in is our changing understanding of the evolution of our universe in terms of “inflation” and our ever changing understanding of both the economics of society but also the economics of the evolution of humans/life/cosmos.
To me there is so much more that is interesting. Yet without the re-levation of Bohm’s works I think it seems unintelligible and attracts ridicule.