Re: Is physical Reality ultimate Reality?
Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:28:24 +0200 (MET DST)

In article <7fpq34$nfb$>, wrote:
> In article <7fole6$o2b$>,
> wrote:
> > > When you say "are we really dead ? who really dies ?", it scares
> > > me because this is the slippery kind of philosophy that gets
> > > people killed. If you teach this to your kids, will they not
> > > have little regard for death of themselves as well as the deaths
> > > of others ?
> >
> > I understand your concern. It is not something I would teach to my kids,
> > because a child's mind will automatically misinterpret it to mean that
> > killing is ok. I am not saying that killing is an anyway okay.
> > I am only
> > saying that its wrongness lies in the will. And it only in the will, that
> > will be abolished. I have more regard for life than most people. I am one
> > of the most compassionate people you will ever come across about the
> > preciousness of life. But I do not believe life ends in "death", I believe
> > it changes. Life DOES end in the will to kill, however. I would not even
> > tell this to my kids until there are mature enough to decide whether they
> > agree or disagree. Probably around their early twenties. I must say,
> > however, that I am of the belief that risking one's life for a greater cause
> > is one of the greatest virtues of man. Knowing that nothing truely dies
> > unless you will to destroy can get you through risks. I am of the believe
> > that a man should live for a greater cause, any greater cause, and not just
> > for himself.
I know that you were not saying, that killing is ok.
It is perfectly allowable to say that "there is survival after death"
as well as "there is no survival after death" because neither of
these can be "proven" within this physical life. But if you say
"there is survival after death" it has logical consequences for this
physical life such as diminishing one's valuation of life itself
because people might think that life is transitory so why do they
have to be "good" in life or why do they have to respect life at all.
So most religions that adopt this view have to add the extra support
for this claim that there is "something else" which determines "good"
and "bad" in life. This is alot like mathematics in that you state
an arbitrary (you can't prove propositions) proposition, and then
you logically derive consequences from it as see how far this takes you
before you cannot add anything more before reaching a contradiction.

So all non-trivial religions seem to start with the "law of
non-contradiction" and develop "moral mechanics" from it, and different
religions are like different branches of mathematics as a result. The one
constant (invariant) that binds these non-trivial religions together is that
they all announce a singularity which they call "God" [infinity; really they
all seem to refer to "God" as an infinite spectrum saying something like:
"All subtle and All aware"; meaning in an infinite spectrum, the infinite
continuum of spectral states (all aware) each have infinitely small
measures(all subtle)].

It's just that this kind of philosophy is potentially treacherous
to discuss because it lies at the limits of [Boolean] logic where
all religions seem begin. Religions are not necessarily illogical,
on the contrary, the more persistent religions seem to
have their roots in the analysis of the Boolean "law of non-contradiction"
which makes them rather much more precursors to fuzzy logic theory
in much the same way that Einstein took one law of Euclidean
geometry (parallel lines) and said "is this the only way this can work?".

This doesn't mean religions are illogical but that their meta-logic
mediates the logical contradictions that have plagued Boolean
logic from the beginning. So in Christianity, there's alot of non-Boolean
references by Christ, and in Islamic cosmogony, Buddhism, Kabbalah, ...
there are also references to the "law of non-contradiction" and
what it means to them to "resolve that contradiction".

The core of all established religions seems to be the same:
they all announce a god, and seem to address the
"law of non-contradiction" from which they derive their idiosyncracies
depending on their particular solutions to the paradox when the
law is violated; which it often is.

The law of non-contradiction says:
when I say "this is bad" it cannot also be true that "this is good".
X and not-X cannot be both be true

Anyway, it's interesting that this leads to more insight into
religions and how they each work out their "solutions" to the
"nature of existence" problem.

I certainly don't understand all the intracacies,
but one thing definitely stands out is that "objective life"
is not without physical consequences regardless of how you
define "subjective life" and this we should make sure is central
in children's minds before we start showing them the more difficult
concepts in defining "subjectivity" etc.

You mention the "will" influencing others almost as if it were some
kind of telepathy. I'm not sure if that's what you meant but
what do you mean by: "All you have to do is will murder and it
will spread." ? This seems to be a common idea in many religions, that
there is a Jungian collective-unconsciousness through which many
people are subjectively connected in real-time, sort of like
Bose-condensates in which many particles have some kind of
liquid connection to each other.

It's certainly true that when large numbers of people get together
they start acting as a mob or split into smaller mobs like the
core of a nuclear reactor which begins to melt-down, many particles
aggregate and chain reactions get out of control. Same thing with
economies when they correct, deflate, recess, depress or collapse
(China syndrome).

[the trend in mathematics seems to be approaching that of quantum
physics when it displaced classical physics. That is, in classical
mathematics, the integers were like distinct particles and now
with Fuzzy theory, fractals, and from what I understand from my
friend- ultrametrics, etc, the integer itself is becoming a less
discrete notion. Perhaps the periodicity in the chemical table
will become more understandable mathematically in these terms
and the prime atomic numbers of copper, silver, and gold will be
less of a diasynchronic coincidence and more of a synchronic one ?]


-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
(1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
"SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to
(2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
(3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
(4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
(5) WWW archive: