from..geo/link<<..For the Chinese..there are two fundamental laws..underlying change in the universe,..the law of polar reversal and the law of periodicity...>>

lets recall..the polar reversal/law

i recall once..seeing a moving giff..
that revealed a circum polar orbit..around the alternate poles of an atom

the electron..flipped [fell][was drawn]..first 2/3 rds the way..arround the positive pole..

then skipped over-to
the..so called negative..which flicked it right back..circling again 2/3 rds the way around..before yet again..repeating the alternate partial pole circumnavigation..repeat endlessly

side on..it would resemble the ying/yan
and from..its oppisite side..resembling the yin/yang

but at the time..
i only saw it as the horizontal *8*..[of eternity]

the other giff i recall..was the yin/yan
which showed the dots alternatly..passing though the opposing..yin/yan hole..[with the black/white sphere/holes/balls..passing through the rocking tear shapets..horisontaly8

WHICH yet againbrings us to..<<Polar reversal means that things change into their opposites,..but not only that.>>lol

<<..Even more profoundly,the seeds of change
are carried ALTERNATLY..within each entity;..each entity contains within..*itself the tendency>>..

lol its own..equal/opposing
variable constant..lore/law ..lol
living/loving light via logic..[suss-staining]..life..
revealed in the light/sustained by the flow of e [light]via logic

logically..seeking life into to logical living loving..lived

<<that will one day manifest..as its opposite.>>?

Periodicity means things change..in recurring cycles,
like night and day or the changing of the seasons.>>

but thats not the be all/end all

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for the link to that interesting piece by Bill Meacham entitled “Tao Te Ching Ontology”.

I feel a certain community of thought with the ideas expressed by the author and his mentor, the mathematician philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, though I also have some major differences, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of the term “polar reversal” to describe the modification of the dominating factor of yin or yang, and, also, the concept of “the world as being a field of energy, called Qi” – a sort of worldwide grid of energy.

In both instances I see these as Whitehead’s personal interpretations rather than a faithful description of yin and yang on the one hand and qi on the other, as conceived by their Chinese authors and those having adopted them as part of their world view.

As previously indicated, my understanding is that yin and yang is a concept inspired by the duality observed in nature, which Anne Cheng terms an “anthropo-cosmology” uniting mankind to the cosmos in perfect harmony. Whereas qi is conceived by its Chinese authors as a supernatural life force or energy, equivalent to the Christian concept of the holy spirit.

As regards David’s analogy with mathematics, I see pure mathematics as a product of the human imagination and, as such, not part of reality. Your definition of applied mathematics as an “epistemological tool” is fine with me.

Yin and yang, on the other hand is not a product of the imagination. I see it as a logical construction based on the duality observed in nature, an extrapolation from nature. It seems to me that the mental process is the inverse of that in mathematics.

But please correct me if I am wrong.

.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

Re: YouTube video of superhuman Shaolin monk.

Recourse to magic is a constant throughout history to prove the existence of the supernatural and, to my great regret, the gullibility of mankind knows no bounds.

Even some of the more intelligent among us fall victims to magicians, swindlers, crooks, con men, gurus, religious cranks, fortune tellers, hookers, hustlers, whoremongers, politicians and experts of all sorts ...

Just how they manage to do it is a mystery to me.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> I see pure mathematics as a product of the human imagination and, as such, not part of reality. <<

There are the Penrose’s three worlds, mental, mathematical and physical. Of course, the mental and physical worlds are different, but many mathematicians see also the world of mathematical concepts and relations as different, though obviously not independent, from the other two. If mathematics were a pure product of human imagination - like a fairy tale about ghosts and fairies - you would have the problem with what Wigner called the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in explaining physical reality, including making verifiable predictions. Of course, the mathematical world is not part of physical reality, and I believe it is neither part of, nor solely product of, mental reality (I prefer the terminology “not reducible to” to “not part of” or “not a product of”); it lingers somewhere “in between”.

>>Yin and yang, on the other hand is not a product of the imagination. I see it as a logical construction based on the duality observed in nature, <<

Well, the same could be said about mathematics. Natural numbers (and other elementary mathematical concepts) are “constructions based on” phenomena observed in nature: You learned to understand the concept of “5” by being asked to observe the difference between five, and say three, apples, and what was shared by five apples and five bunnies. Only higher mathematics are constructions that are not based on direct observation, nevertheless are "unreasonably effective" in explaining features of physical reality.

i..agree banjo
it has to be a trick..
just like dynamo..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dynamo+bucket+of+fish+trick

some i can figure out..others amaze me
how can humans think..so affectingly..so as to trick us

sure with computers
we can raise the dead..make water freeze..
or 3 buckets of fish..come out of an empty bucket..

thus it all..must be clever editing..

but i found there is other stuff
like the joe fuel cell that makes..bonded hydrogen?..[HH2?]
ie a gas..that dont explode..but IMPLODES*.

.its created only via..a certain grade..
of graduated stainless steel tubes..that somehow capture the chi

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=joe+fuel+cell+byron+bay
[see a 45 minute vidio..[rubber carrying electron flow][imploding gas]

Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 2 September 2013 2:08:18 AM

Banjo wrote: As regards David’s analogy with mathematics, I see pure mathematics as a product of the human imagination and, as such, not part of reality. Your definition of applied mathematics as an “epistemological tool” is fine with me.

Dear Banjo,

What exists is reality. Let us here make a distinction. We can confuse the map of a territory with a territory. The territory may or may not exist, but the map does. We may map imaginary territories with magic which shows the existence of a supernatural. We agree that this is a map for the gullible, and the supernatural does not exist. We can map Middle Earth which is a product of Tolkien’s imagination. Middle Earth does not exist. However, the map does exist. Our discussion of it is a consequence of its existence.

The human imagination exists. It is real. However, what it conjures up may or may not be real. Mathematics is one of the objects conjured up by the human imagination. The map is real. Mathematics is a map. There are no infinite sets as physical objects. There are no perfect circles as physical objects. Nevertheless, infinite sets and perfect circles are part of the map called mathematics. The map is real as are the legends of supernatural beings. Whether the supernatural beings are real or the objects mathematics conjures up are real is another question. Of course they aren’t.

However, the objects conjured up by the map called mathematics can either approach reality or coincide with reality. Number is an abstraction. However, we can count ten objects. It is the human mind which assigns a number to the collection of objects, but the objects are real.

Mathematics is a product of the human imagination, but it is also reality just as the legends of the supernatural are real. We can think of mathematics as a map which can be manipulated and can be applied to understand real physical territory.

continued