Gödel and Determinism

[Reference: Is there an absolute Will?]

Isene provides the following logic in his article:

  1. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be consistent.
  2. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be complete.
  3. No system of rules can be both complete and consistent per Godels Incompleteness Theorems.
  4. Thus, no system can be deterministic.

This is how I see it.

Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. I do not know if Godel’s argument can be extended to as complex a system as the universe.

.

Definitions:

de•ter•min•ism (noun)
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

axiomatic system
In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.

complete
A set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms’ language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms.

consistent
A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its negation are provable from the axioms.

e·nu·mer·ate verb (used with object)
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.

effectively generated
A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the existence of a program that enumerates all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems.

.

Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory…

Gödel’s theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created, nor even an infinite list that can be enumerated by a computer program. Each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent.

There are complete and consistent lists of axioms for arithmetic that cannot be enumerated by a computer program. For example, one might take all true statements about the natural numbers to be axioms (and no false statements), which gives the theory known as “true arithmetic”. The difficulty is that there is no mechanical way to decide, given a statement about the natural numbers, whether it is an axiom of this theory, and thus there is no effective way to verify a formal proof in this theory.

This may mean that if this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.

.

Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.

The second incompleteness theorem does not rule out consistency proofs altogether, only consistency proofs that could be formalized in the theory that is proved consistent. The second incompleteness theorem is similar to the Liar’s paradox, “This sentence is false,” which contains an inherent contradiction about its truth value.

This may mean that this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.

.

If we go by the definition of determinism that all facts and events exemplify natural laws, we cannot say for certain if that is true or not. In other words, not everything may be predictable ahead of its occurrence.

Manifestations may be related to each other in strict logical sequence meaning that any manifestation may be shown to follow from another manifestation. However, it may be impossible to determine how a manifestation may come to be on its own. This is another version of saying, “Absolutes are unattainable.”

So a system may be deterministic only in a relative sense. It can neither be absolutely deterministic, nor can it be absolutely non-deterministic. 

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On July 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    The center of gravity of an object is essentially the resultant of all the force vectors acting on the molecules of that object. Similarly, a center of consciousness may be looked upon as the resultant of all mental forces and energies associated with you through awareness at that moment. This center of such mental forces and energies may be called SELF.

    A center of gravity is relatively stable compared to the moving particles of that object. Similarly, SELF may appear relatively stable compared to all the mental forces and energies, which are in a flux.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    There are no enemies or suppressive persons. There are inconsistencies only.

    It is paranoiac fixation on self that creates enemies or suppressive persons. Simply focus on inconsistencies and address them with KHTK Exercises. Everything will be well.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2013 at 7:34 AM

      Vin: There are no enemies or suppressive persons. There are inconsistencies only.

      Chris: This statement is consistent for the context of this thread. “Suppressive person” can be a placeholder in the context of “war” or “doing battle,” etc.,.

    • vinaire  On January 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

      That is correct. These concepts serve to sweep problems under the carpet. They are there because the problem is not being confronted.

      .

  • vinaire  On July 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM

    For most people, body is an intimate part of their self. The Scientology command, “BE THREE FEET BACK OF YOUR HEAD” may simply serve to jar, momentarily, one’s fixed attention on the body. It may give one a glimpse of what it is like when the attention is not fixed on the body.

    This command may not have any effect on a person whose attention is too fixed on the body, or whose attention is not fixed on the body in the first place. Those who are affected by this command may believe that they have suddenly separated from the body and are ‘exterior’ to it. In actual case there is only a shift in viewpoint of the person. He didn’t even know how fixed his attention was on the body.

    Scientology uses strange vocabulary, such as, ‘thetan’ and ‘exteriorization.’ It believes that the person is a spiritual entity, called ‘thetan’, which has separated itself from the body, called ‘exteriorization’. But what has actually happened here is a relief from fixation on the body. This sudden relief may be surprising, but soon that feeling is gone.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2013 at 7:36 AM

      Check! I can use this.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2013 at 7:44 AM

      Vin: “This sudden relief may be surprising, but soon that feeling is gone.”

      Chris: “Attention” seems to gravitate; to drift; to float; or zoom and to focus. We do seem to be able to use it, to direct it, to focus it; however, it can become fixated. This fixation reminds me of the way that a particle stream is focused by the magnetic fields in the collider at Cern.

      Or is “attention” analogous to the magnetic fields and “intention” analogous to the particle stream?

      • vinaire  On January 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM

        Attention seems to activate considerations when it is exterior to them. But when attention is fixated on considerations, the considerations maintain their status quo.

        .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 6:21 AM

    One can probably handle a situation better once the attention is no longer obsessively fixed on it.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 6:29 AM

    One’s attention is usually stuck on those things one has been told not to look at. One was told that looking at those things would be bad or dangerous. This might be so, but it is better to look and handle whatever is bad or dangerous there.

    Going back and looking at those things, which one was told not to look at, might release that fixed attention. There is one caution. One should not just start to think about such things randomly. One needs to pick up one thing at a time and contemplate on what the mind brings up.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 7:19 AM

    Fixation in terms of space may express itself as being at certain locations.
    Fixation in terms of energy may express itself as feeling of rapid motion.
    Fixation in terms of mass may express itself as inertia in getting things done.
    Fixation in terms of time may express itself as as thought of permanence in the form of a self or soul.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 8:01 AM

    In Scientology, there is this strange concept of thetan, which nobody really understands. There is nothing to understand really.

    Thetan is the abstract consideration of ‘being’. Thetan occupying a certain space is consideration of ‘that space being’. It is simply having attention on that space, which brings it into being.

    The attention becomes that space.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2012 at 8:12 AM

      as in the wave collapse?

      • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 8:49 AM

        We are working towards that. I don’t have a good grasp of attention and awareness yet.

        .

      • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM

        Why does music have certain affect on people? You may ignore the words of the song. But music has certain effect all by itself. These are sound waves being converted into neural waves and going deep into the mind. Maybe a smooth waveform penetrates deeper, Then there is the matter of resonance. There is a lot here to look at.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2012 at 1:43 AM

          Regarding music, I have long held that similarly consistent waveforms to the individual’s own waveforms are more pleasing to that individual. Said another way, the type of music that I like at particular time may be because it harmonizes with my mind . . . thus differences in taste . . . similar with food and other senses as well… the favorite waveforms are somehow similar to and resonate with our current mental states.

        • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:39 AM

          Yes. That seems to be the case.

          .

    • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM

      When Hubbard talks about a thetan occupying the same space as an object, it seems to translate simply as ‘becoming aware of that object’. I don’t understand why Hubbard uses such confusing vocabulary. There is no thetan. There is only attention and awareness.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 24, 2012 at 11:49 PM

        Yes, “be it” seems to mean “become aware of it.” And in addition to attention and awareness we need to consider focus. I was paying attention to my focus today and realizing that as I drive or read that I am focusing on no more than a couple degrees no more than about approximately 2 inches or 5 cm at arms length in front of my face. Everything outside those few degrees become peripheral vision extending outward to somewhere around 160 degrees or 80 degrees to the left and to the right of a perpendicular line in front of my face. This is really curious to me – there seems to be some zooming possible but I can clearly zoom and focus approximately 1/4″ outward to about 2 inches tops before the peripheral vision starts. I am really wondering about how to apply this data.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2012 at 1:47 AM

          . . . but it may be more than just this. We may have to duplicate somehow its innate waveform — to become willing to let it in or to “go in” – like a key in a lock. Colors, temperatures, shapes, sizes, symmetries, weight, and so forth.

        • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:31 AM

          Check out Exercise 3 here, which I have added recently.

          KHTK EXERCISE SET 1 (new)

          .

        • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:40 AM

          I am studying COHA (Creation of Human Ability by Hubbard) at the moment. Hence these comments…

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2012 at 10:42 AM

          ah!

    • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM

      There seems to be degrees of awareness about something. One may just think about something, or one may have intimate familiarity with that thing. Here we have have two different levels of awareness.

      ‘Occupying the same space as’ would simply mean a level of most intimate and complete awareness.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 24, 2012 at 11:52 PM

        . . . and I am wondering if this is or how this is related to focus and field of vision.

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM

    Havingness seems to have something to do with awareness in terms of senses that are grounded in reality, and not just in terms of mental speculation.

    Mental figure-figure in an effort to resolve some problem may lead to ‘a loss of havingness’ as one drifts into losing touch with reality.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 22, 2012 at 11:35 AM

      This can be accounted for mathematically as a fractal coordinate which iterates away into infinity from the X,Y axis.

      It can also be accounted for in Scientology processes when repairing “havingness” involves directing the PC’s attention back into the “real” world by having him do various drills like touching and noticing various objects in the immediate environment. This both reads on the e-meter and is readily apparent to the PC’s subjective awareness of his surroundings becoming more real to him.

      I am wondering if every phenomena everywhere may be within the descriptive bounds of the language of mathematics. And if it were, why is that?

    • Chris Thompson  On July 24, 2012 at 11:54 PM

      Havingness is a physical manifestation regardless of the word you give it. I doubt it is confined to Scientology.

    • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM

      I find it useful to think of Havingness in terms of being in touch with reality. In that sense scientists shall have high havingness.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM

        . . . and what of meditating upon a dot on the wall?

        • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM

          That is what scientists seem to be doing… ha ha. Talk about the Higg’s particle…

          .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

    Mathematics is a wonderful tool to organize thought.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

    The beautiful thing about Buddhism is that, like science, it is rooted in the senses derived from this universe. It does not stray into speculations as Scientology does.

    When one follows Buddhist exercises of Vipassana, there is never any loss of havingness.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM

      So you declare; however, that would be hard to prove.

      • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:18 AM

        I am more into looking and encouraging others into looking and recognizing inconsistencies. I shall leave proofs to Geometry.

        The deeper I get into Buddhism, the more I realize how much rooted it is in actual senses derived from this universe. Just look at the very first exercise about mindfulness in breathing. It keeps one grounded through awareness of breathing unlike OT TR0 of Scientology. Here one doesn’t do anything with breathing except for being aware of it. That awareness keeps one grounded in reality.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM

          So are we trying to stay grounded in reality or remove attachments?

        • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM

          It is like peeling the layers of an onion. To remove the top layer you have to be grounded in the layers beneath it. When the top layer is removed, the next layer becomes the top layer and the grounding shifts accordingly.

          It is all relative.

          .

  • vinaire  On July 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

    R1-12: HAVE PRECLEAR MOCK-UP GENERATORS, POWER PLANTS AND SUNS TO GIVE HIM ENERGY, ON THAT GRADIENT SCALE, UNTIL HE IS TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE ENERGY FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. (A COMPLETE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS)

    This is a procedure in Scientology which seems to get into speculation. It is assumed that a person does not need energy from an outside source, but can generates one’s own energy.

    A more basic assumption here is that mental forces/energies are separate and independent of physical forces/energies. In actuality, a person is made up of a combination of physical and mental forces and energies. The body needs to eat and support the mind.

    The self is like the “center of gravity” of these physical and mental forces and energies. Self is nothing in itself. Self is part of this universe. There is exchange of energy between the self and the rest of the universe. The self cannot survive without the universe.

    What remedies havingness is to get really in touch with the real universe out there. The idea that a person does not have to receive energy from outside source is humbug. This process is going to condition the mind in a certain way.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

    Hubbard says,“Considerations take rank over the mechanics.”

    I belive that considerations and mechanics go hand in hand. After all ‘mechanics’ is a consideration too. And the importance or unimportance of mechanics is also a consideration. So I do not buy what Hubbard is saying here.

    I agree that if there is an inconsistency to do with considerations and mechanics then one should be addressing that. Hubbard says, “… the mechanics have
    taken such precedent in man that they have become more important than the considerations and overpower his ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics…”

    This is not the problem with mechanics. Scientists have done a great job of understanding mechanics and have put that understanding to great use. This has been a hallmark of the western civilization.

    It is not the mechanics that are the problem. It is the ignorance of mechanics that needs to be addressed.

    The inconsistency lies in Hubbard putting mechanics down. Hubbard also declares MEST universe as a theta trap in his THETA-MEST theory. Hubbard is taking sides here by pitching Theta against MEST. There is something very wrong here with Hubbard’s theory.

    In my opinion Theta and MEST are part of the same overall system. One only needs to address inconsistencies that arise in the interaction between Theta and MEST. Neither Theta is superior to MEST, nor MEST is superior to Theta.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 25, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    R1- 6: HAVE PRECLEAR HOLD THE TWO UPPER BACK ANCHOR POINTS OF THE ROOM FOR AT LEAST TWO MINUTES BY THE CLOCK.

    This is an interesting Scientology process. When a person has his attention knowingly fixed on the two corners, it may so happen that he may let go of his unknowingly fixed attention on the body.

    This command may not have any effect on a person whose attention is too fixed on the body, or whose attention is not fixed on the body in the first place. Those who are affected by this command may believe that they have suddenly separated from the body and are ‘exterior’ to it. In actual case there is only a shift in viewpoint of the person. He didn’t even know how fixed his attention was on the body.

    ‘Exteriorization’ is simply a shift of viewpoint from body to outside the body.

    A similar shift of viewpoint is possible from the physical universe to “outside” the physical universe.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 7:39 AM

      hehe well, this is what hobbies are for, aren’t they?

      • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

        I think you are right. 🙂

        My hobby at the moment is nit-picking Scientology.

        .

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 6:54 PM

          Yes, and a fruitful nit-picking it is being. 😉

        • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

          Placing my attention from the things it is fixated on and onto “something else” is one reason that I play guitar. It is a hobby and a few minutes vacation — refreshing to have my fixed attention unfixed.

        • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

          It is fun to look at COHA processes with the KHTK approach of looking with mindfulness.

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM

    Hubbard says:
    “Agreement with the physical universe brings about the consideration on the part of the preclear that two things cannot occupy the same space. It is this basic rule which keeps the physical universe ‘stretched’. It is not, however, true that two things cannot occupy the same space, and it is particularly untrue when the two things are an object and a thetan, since a thetan can occupy the space any object is occupying.”

    Hubbard’s assertion that two things can occupy the same space is false. A thetan is not a thing but a consideration. Hubbard even admits elsewhere that thetan is not a thing.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    The purpose of COHA processes is to bring an individual into thorough communication with the physical universe.

    Route 1 processes basically address fixed attention in the following order:
    (1) Fixed attention on things uppermost in the mind. (R1-5)
    (2) Fixed attention on (identification with) body’s location. (R1-4, R1-6)
    (3) Fixed attention on locations in the physical universe (actual locations). (R1-7)
    (4) Fixed attention on things regarded as bad or dangerous (actual things). (R1-8)

    Route 1 processes then exercise freed attention as follows:
    (5) Place attention on actual locations that are real to the person (do not suggest locations that are unreal) (R1-9)
    (6) Become aware of one’s tolerance of things. (R1-10)
    (7) Become aware of actual problems and solutions (not imagined ones) (R1-11)
    (8) Get thoroughly in touch with the physical universe reality. (R1-12)
    (9) Familiarize yourself fully with the body’s nerve structure. (R1-13)
    (10) Thoroughly examine one’s habits and patterns. (R1-14)
    (11) Thoroughly examine one’s impressions of the physical universe (R1-15)

    However, many of these processes are put together in a weird manner with weird vocabulary, and one may not be able to run them as intended. A PDF copy of COHA may be downloaded from Internet.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

    Space itself can be havingness if one can view it as something.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

      Yes, it is clear to me how this can be. My experience is of space being more significant and freeing to me than my experience of solid material things. Space in my memory has always seemed like something to me rather than nothing. Given the choice of a cozy cabin in a beautiful (thick) forest setting vs. a sod house out on the ocean of vistas of flat plains on the North Texas panhandle, I choose the wide open spaces.

      But I never quite thought about it in just that way before.

      • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 7:53 PM

        I got that realization while looking at R2-18 and R2-19 of COHA.

        .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 8:03 PM

    There are simply locations, movements, objects and considerations about them. They have the property of attention and awareness by the very fact of existence. A combination of such things may produce the sense of ‘I’. This ‘I’ can be a problem or a solution from other viewpoints or its own. ‘I’ is a problem to degree it becomes inflexible. ‘I’ is a solution to the degree it induces flexibility. ‘I’ may be analyzed by breaking it down into locations, movements, objects and considerations. This is just a thought.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2012 at 8:37 PM

    Hubbard says:
    “Granting of Beingness (life) to something. The preclear is as well as he can grant life to things, an action which involves the creation of energy. The basic granting of beingness is the thetan duplicating himself as another thinking being.”

    In my opinion, Granting of Beingness would be letting something (or somebody) be for what it is, and making no efforts to alter it by adding or subtracting to it. You are not giving it life. It is what it is. You are not creating energy. The energy is already there. You are simply becoming aware of it.

    Thetan is just a label for a combination of locations, movements, particles and considerations. There are locations, movements, particles and considerations other than those, which make up your ‘I’.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 11:19 PM

      Like a fractal iteration, every moment that it has iterated makes the previous iteration recede into the past and possibly into oblivion. Thus as the resulting iteration, though similar yet is different. The language, the words which have been earmarked for a certain iteration at a certain moment also get left behind in meaning for the meaning is the iteration. As the newest iteration is different from the previous iteration, the old words naming previous iterations cease to be as correctly descriptive as they used to be and their essence becomes as lost as the previous iteration.

      Once not long ago I wrote to you that I was at the core the same unknowable static that I ever was and you wrote to me, “Are you sure?” As true as my statement of “I” was true to me then, it is no longer true to me. Rather than wearing my “i” like a garment, that “I” now looks as foreign to me as a stranger. It stands out in front of me like a worn and thread-bare suit on a rack.

      “This existence as it unwinds is becoming very different than I ever expected.” Now that statement I have said more than a few times in the past and it has retained its consistency.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM

      There is a consistency to your statement of “granting beingness” which is pleasingly consistent to me and which is consistent with my statements about fractals above.

    • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 4:45 AM

      It is like peeling off the layers of onions. I don’t know how many layers there might be. 🙂

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    Hubbard: “In the mechanics of the granting of beingness we have ‘orientation point’ and the ‘symbol’. An orientation point is that point in relation to which others have location.”

    Vinaire: An orientation point is not something absolute. It is itself a location, so all locations are relative to each other including the orientation point.

    Hubbard: “It is also that point from which the space containing the locations is being created.”

    Vinaire: Locations are the properties of space. Therefore, the orientation point is part of the space. It does not stand out from the space and creates space.

    Hubbard: “In the orientation point we have our basic definition of space: ‘Space is a viewpoint of dimension’.”

    Vinaire: Dimensions are measurable properties. Anything manifested is perceived because of its dimensions. Space contains the viewpoint as well as the dimensions.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM

    . . . and something more is that the character of space is different from the character of matter. The manifestation and character of space seems to have something more in common with time than it does with matter or energy. Space-time is aptly named. I have to look at this some more.

    I am seeing a consistency in saying that the “propagation point” of light is not in motion. Thus resolving the mystery of c constant for all frames of reference. This is wound up in space-time such that resolving one of these may lead to making the other problems dissolve as well.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM

    Space seems to not have resistance as photons seem to not have mass.

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    (1) Space underlies energy and matter. I believe that energy is ripples in space, and matter is condensation of those ripples.

    (2) The degree to which space has transformed into energy and condensed into matter seems to be perceived as endurance (a property of time).

    (3) Another property of time is perceived as sequence of events. This comes from comparing what is there to an impression of what was there. It is a perception of change.

    (4) There is change in terms of location in space. There is also change in terms of degree of transformation from space to energy to matter.

    (5) The two basic elements are, therefore (a) what is changing [space, energy, matter], and (b) awareness of that change [time].

    .

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM

    If one looks at light as ripples in the fabric of space, then one need not worry about the motion of the ‘propagation point’. Speed of these ripples depends upon the nature of space and not on the motion of any ‘propagation point’. One can move in the same direction as these ripples, or in the opposite direction. This would only influence the frequency of light one perceives (Doppler effect) that would appear as change in color. It would not effect the speed of light because light is not something separate from space, and space is not moving even when the ripple is moving.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

      ah, we are back again to EMR, magnetism, and gravity possibly not so much as particles or waves but possibly as yet another kind of manifestation of space. Something measurable but not understood. Months? ago I had written about the possibility of space flowing like a river.

      Possibily space is “drawn” to and “flows” to mass? Possibly inertia is a quality of space rather than of matter?

    • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM

      Vinaire: “Speed of these ripples depends upon the nature of space and not on the motion of any ‘propagation point’.”

      Chris: Yes, understood – but this has not been addressed has it? This constant speed of light for all frames of reference is a great counterintuitive mystery of physics, is it not? So much so that it has been allowed to sit in the corner collecting dust, though the law has been used to move the whole of physics forward. Am I mistaken?

    • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      We have to be careful with our analogies. This conversation gets into similes such as “water through a hose” when comparing “electricity through a wire.” — Has very limited usefulness and is useful mostly for conversational purposes.

      I get the sense of what you are describing and you may be right but we should be careful when comparing radiating EMR to ripples on a pond. One problem that I am looking at is the source of the disturbance. These similes may seem similar like magnetism and gravity seem similar, but these two phenomena are wholly different from one another are they not?

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 2:49 PM

    A photon does not experience resistance rom space because it is not moving against space, just like a ripple in water is not moving against water.

    Photon does not seem to have mass because it is representation of a ripple and not any kind of medium.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM

    ‘Havingness’ would have to do with manifestation. When there is manifestation then there is ‘have’. When there is no manifestation then there is no ‘have.’

    This universe is quite a manifestation. Space itself is a manifestation.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 28, 2012 at 6:25 AM

    OK. Let me try it once again:

    .

    Hubbard: “Granting of Beingness (life) to something. The preclear is as well as he can grant life to things, an action which involves the creation of energy.”

    In my opinion, Granting of Beingness would be letting something (or somebody) be for what it is, and making no efforts to alter it by adding or subtracting to it. You are not giving it life. It is what it is. You are not creating energy. The energy is already there. You are simply becoming aware of it. By granting beingness you are not changing anything out there. You are simply becoming more non-judgmental.

    .

    Hubbard: “The basic granting of beingness is the thetan duplicating himself as another thinking being.”

    This does not make sense. First of all, ‘Thetan’ is merely a label for a combination of locations, movements, particles and considerations. Such label may be applied to other combinations of locations, movements, particles and considerations. But this is being judgmental.

    .

    Hubbard: “In the mechanics of the granting of beingness we have ‘orientation point’ and the ‘symbol’. An orientation point is that point in relation to which others have location.”

    There is simply the process of looking and becoming aware of what is there. ‘Orientation point’ and ‘symbols’ are consideration put forth by Hubbard. As far as locations go, they are all relative to one another. There is no absolute location. Points orient themselves to one another in a mutual fashion and become aware of one another.

    .

    Hubbard: “It is also that point from which the space containing the locations is being created.”

    Locations are the properties of space. Any ‘orientation point’ is also a location and, thus, it is part of the space. There is no point beside space that creates space. If awareness is looked upon as space then it is simply there. It may be made to concentrate at any point within that awareness.

    .

    Hubbard: “In the orientation point we have our basic definition of space: ‘Space is a viewpoint of dimension’. “

    (1) Space is simply there. It is also awareness. So awareness is simply there.

    (2) Awareness may focus, or concentrate, itself at any point within itself, and one may call that an ‘orientation point’.

    (3) Awareness may also focus, or concentrate, itself on another point within itself, and one may call that a ‘symbol’.

    (4) Awareness may then differentiate between these two points, and one may call that a measure or ‘dimension’.

    (5) Awareness, or space, shall then consist of points (locations) and measurable properties (dimensions). This may be represented mathematically by scales.

    (6) But the awareness, or space, is already there. It is not created. It simply focuses and concentrates itself in various ways.

    .

    The above is what appears consistent to me. 🙂

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM

    You are firing on all cylinders! 😀

    • vinaire  On July 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

      Well, the above observations are definitely exciting for me… enough for me to put them together in a new essay here.

      Granting of Beingness & Space

      I would not call LRH wrong. He took knowledge to a certain level and, thus, paved the way for better observations to be made..

      LRH is proving to be a great springboard toward greater consistency.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

    The idea that space could not move does not seem consistent to me. This would give space a static property unlike anything else that we know anything about in the universe.

    • vinaire  On July 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

      I think that any movement, or lack of it, attributed to space can simply be attributed to consideration, because a ‘location’ by itself (when nothing is there) is just a consideration.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM

        Physically then, what do you suppose gravity is? What do you suppose is happening?

        • vinaire  On July 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

          Gravity is associated with mass. Mass seems to be standing waves formed by ripples in the fabric of space. I don’t know how mass affects the surrounding space. Mass seems to produce attractive force in its surrounding, which is the gravitational field.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM

          yes, Vinaire, but since we are speculating . . .

          Why is it that the rate of acceleration of a falling object at 32ft/sec/sec is the same for a feather or a bowling ball? My speculation is that these items are being drawn along floating on a river of space.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM

          . . . and it is that space which is moving — pressuring these objects to gravitate toward the mass object.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2012 at 7:01 AM

          The gravitational acceleration of 32 ft/sec/sec is the proportionality constant between weight and mass. Weight is proportional to mass. That is the mathematical significance.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM

          Yeah, well it doesn’t seem we are exchanging concepts on this. Maybe I could ask this differently.

          If we begin with the idea that mass is attracted to mass, then what are we saying? What is occurring?

          In an atmosphere, when I change the local pressure, I create a vacuum and it is the air pressure which is pushing objects like balloons, etc., toward the lower pressure area. Is there a reason to think that space cannot behave somewhat like this? Can it be that it is space which is attracted to matter as well as matter?

          We have this paradigm that fixates on space being nothing and yet, why would we continue to think this.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

          Gravitational force between two stationary objects is proportional to the product of the two masses. It is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two centers of mass.

          The inverse square law tell me that the gravitational attraction spreads out from the center of mass in a spherical configuration, similar to light from a point source.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

          We haven’t quite defined “gravitational attraction” have we?

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2012 at 5:16 AM

    I think I can now state my understanding of THETAN with much more clarity as follows:

    A thetan is not a thing. It is a label applied to a point where all spiritual energies and forces are treated as being concentrated, much like we use the label “center of mass” to a point where all mass of an object is treated to be concentrated for the mathematical application of forces. Please see CENTER OF MASS.

    So, underlying the abstract concept of thetan there is an actual structure of energies and forces. This may be what Buddha was describing here: THE STRUCTURE OF “I”.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM

    Magnetic charges attract and repel particles.

    Gravity is different. And not to be confused wtih the magnetic pole phenomena of Earth and some other planets. Magnetic alignment of a planet is different than gravity.

    The intuitive statement of inertia is that, “matter at rest tends to stay at rest and matter in motion tends to stay in motion.”

    Then consider matter accelerating toward matter because of the “attraction” of gravity. The intuitive feeling toward this is that particles are being pulled toward one another because matter draws itself toward other matter. But this is not because of an electrical charge, is it? No. Then what? Can it be possible that matter has a character that draws space-time to itself?

    And if it could be possible, then could we postulate that space-time flowing into matter is the “attractive force” of gravity?

  • vinaire  On July 30, 2012 at 8:26 AM

    Electromagnetic waves are self-propagating. Does that mean they are self-determined?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM

      ah! good one. Maybe.

      Why don’t they diminish as they ripple through space?

    • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2012 at 10:35 PM

      Does space contain a self-catalyzing quality which is stimulated and activated by an EMR disturbance?

    • vinaire  On August 1, 2012 at 5:32 AM

      Somewhere here there may be a structure, which would explain self-determinism.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    Vin: “I don’t think everything is knowable.”

    Chris: This is a good example of “the liar’s paradox.” Everything, in its greatest sense is synonymous with universe. Nothing in its greatest sense is synonymous with “not of the universe.” In the context of those two examples, the following two statements are consistent:

    Everything is knowable.
    Nothing is unknowable.

    Because my two statements cover everything, I shall claim that they are complete. If this were to be true, does it follow that I have proved your original post when you wrote, “This is how I see it. Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. I do not know if Godel’s argument can be extended to as complex a system as the universe.”

    Or have I shown something else, such as my ass?

    • vinaire  On January 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      Language seems to condition our mind. How can one get out from this limitation of language that even imprisons our thinking.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM

        Ah, the language is solid; manifested; more solid layer than thought. To express, we must create a structure to hold a thought, which is already some type of structure. So the language, once spoken or written does indeed imprison the expressed concept and makes it “hard.”

        • vinaire  On January 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM

          Each symbol is a compressed thought fixed in space.

          .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: