Zero equals infinity says the mystic

[Jumi]

No role at all, no. It is after all our interface to the outside world. However I do believe we can take conscious control over how we respond.

If I understood you correctly then I agree. Then mystical experiences, do you expect people to think they could bypass our subconscious somehow? Way I see it, whatever happens our mind is always there, conscious, subconscious however we call it.

Experiences that at the time you understood perfectly, but when you tried to convey the experience you couldn't find the right words to describe the impact of the experience. An experience that changed your perspective in a way that you couldn't or didn't consciously think of or grasp prior to the experience?

I won't go so far as to say I really understood anything perfectly about my experiences. I don't even think there would be a point to trying to understand them. Sure, there were perspective changes, but how do we quantify them? Not easily. As to any kind of impacts on my thoughts, I put them through the same analysis as any other ideas I have and they've been through debates... some rejected and some become part of the new normal.

About the impact of the experiences to real life, there's the old saying about enlightenment that fits mysticism well, just replace enlightenment with experience:

before enlightenment chop wood, carry water
after enlightenment chop wood, carry water

 

[sealchan]

This modern mystic would consider a mystic who said such a thing to be slightly off his/her/its meds. They are two different concepts and to pretend they are the same is silly and or misguided.

Mystics often see the connections between things which are typically considered separate. One of the earmarks of mysticism is its tendency to say paradoxical things which are unacceptible to the practical mind.

The heart of all mysticism is the dissolution of differences into the transcended and paradoxically undifferentiated substance of being...or something like that.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The angel of new things itself would become old and die if you tried to let Heaven create and learn infinity. If anything eternity (always before) is more important than creation or learning and there is no angel for new things.

 

[blü 2]

To the scientist zero never equals infinity and division by zero is "undefined".

'Infinity' ─ literally 'boundlessness' ─ is an abstraction, a mathematical concept, and like all mathematical concepts, has no counterpart in reality.

To the mystic, zero equals infinity

Using mathematical concepts of zero and infinity, that's just nonsense, so I assume some other definitions are being used. What definitions do mystics use for 'infinity' and 'equals' and 'zero'?

and is the source of all creativity and possibility in the Universe.

What does 'creativity' mean here?

The problem with some people's way of thinking is they believe objectivity is objective. It isn't. All "good" objectivity is determined by subjective judgments.

That's true, but scientific method is still the best means we know to maximize objectivity. Mysticism never discovered the structure of DNA or put a rover on Mars.

People who are devout in their belief science is the only worthy approach to resolving our big questions around our own existence are simply deluding themselves.

It's a question, not of blind faith, but lack of alternatives. Science works, when we want to explore, describe and seek to explain the world that exists external to the self. Indeed, I'm under the impression that reality is not the topic of mysticism at all, but please correct me if that's wrong.

The idea of science and the scientific method have limitations. No belief system is perfect. Every belief system is built on a set of assumptions and axioms that are considered to be true without any proof. If you dig hard enough there will find the axioms inherent in every belief system. And in every case, these axioms, once questioned, will put the belief system in doubt.

My axioms are that

a world exists external to the self,
the senses are capable of informing us of that world, and
reason is a valid tool.​

(They have to be assumed because none of them can be shown to be correct without first assuming it's correct.) By posting on RF you show that you agree with the first two. I trust you also agree that reason is a valid tool?

Or do you start with other axioms, and if so, what are they?

 

[QuestioningMind]

To the scientist zero never equals infinity and division by zero is "undefined". To the mystic, zero equals infinity and is the source of all creativity and possibility in the Universe. Our Big Bang is the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

The problem with some people's way of thinking is they believe objectivity is objective. It isn't. All "good" objectivity is determined by subjective judgments. People who are devout in their belief science is the only worthy approach to resolving our big questions around our own existence are simply deluding themselves.

The idea of science and the scientific method have limitations. No belief system is perfect. Every belief system is built on a set of assumptions and axioms that are considered to be true without any proof. If you dig hard enough there will find the axioms inherent in every belief system. And in every case, these axioms, once questioned, will put the belief system in doubt.

Being able to question the validity of the axioms of any belief systems is a property and limitation of human language none of us can escape. We either choose to accept these limitations, which are extremely uncomfortable for most people, or we choose to think our own dogma as the only right dogma. If we choose dogma above all else, then people who do not share the same axioms as we do will seem to be insane in their thinking. This is human nature.

To the mystic, zero equals infinity. To the scientist, zero never equals infinity.

It most of the discussions on these threads the most basic axiom the theists have is "God exists". To the people who choose science or atheism over religion, the theists are irrational and insane. And the theists think people who do not choose to accept the divine nature of existence are damned to a life of misery empty of any real meaning. The two ends will never meet.

There is no question that the scientific method has it's limitations. That said, it it by FAR the most reliable means of determining how the natural world works that human beings have yet to come up with. By definition it is useless for exploring the 'supernatural' or anything that people propose exists 'outside' of or 'beyond' nature.

However, that leaves the question of how does one determine what if anything IS supernatural. Has anyone ever been able to firmly establish the existence of the supernatural, in the way that we've established that a natural world exists? If so, has this method for determining that the supernatural world exists proven itself to be as reliable at figuring out how the supernatural world actually works, as the scientific method has been for determining the validity and functionality of the natural world? Until we can come up with some unified method for determining that a supernatural world even exists, it seems logical to measure supernatural claims against what we can determine via the scientific method.

That is to say, if a supernatural claim completely violates what we've been able to determine is possible in the natural world, it makes sense to at least question the validity of the claim.

 

[Jumi]

Using mathematical concepts of zero and infinity, that's just nonsense, so I assume some other definitions are being used. What definitions do mystics use for 'infinity' and 'equals' and 'zero'?

There is no "mystic's definition" for this. There are experiences that people have of void and eternity. Being a modern mystic, I don't think they are things one should confuse with mathematical concepts. That being said, if I talk to another mystic and use the term void, they will probably have some grasp of what I mean. There's no hidden meaning here, no occult significance or new age prophet behind it. It's more like having sex. You can have some idea what it's about without having it, but when you do, there's something different to it. After multiple experiences one would forget how it was to think before them unless reminded about it by others.

That's true, but scientific method is still the best means we know to maximize objectivity. Mysticism never discovered the structure of DNA or put a rover on Mars.

Indeed it didn't. It played a role in some scientists life that led to some discoveries that made things of today possible, but a scientist even if they have an inspiration would experiment to see it's validity. A mystic worth his salt who is also a scientist or technician, wouldn't confuse his experience with experiment.

Indeed, I'm under the impression that reality is not the topic of mysticism at all, but please correct me if that's wrong.

Yes, like most people don't try to use biology to explain how an engine works. Similarly mysticism shouldn't be used to explain physics. A mystic who knows physics would keep physics as something derived from experiment and measurement. Just like Kekule's dream, one would verify it through data from experiments.

Reality is part of the "topic of mysticism" in the way that our perspective on it changes, but not in the way of hard sciences.

 

[ChristineM]

To the scientist zero never equals infinity and division by zero is "undefined". To the mystic, zero equals infinity and is the source of all creativity and possibility in the Universe. Our Big Bang is the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

The problem with some people's way of thinking is they believe objectivity is objective. It isn't. All "good" objectivity is determined by subjective judgments. People who are devout in their belief science is the only worthy approach to resolving our big questions around our own existence are simply deluding themselves.

The idea of science and the scientific method have limitations. No belief system is perfect. Every belief system is built on a set of assumptions and axioms that are considered to be true without any proof. If you dig hard enough there will find the axioms inherent in every belief system. And in every case, these axioms, once questioned, will put the belief system in doubt.

Being able to question the validity of the axioms of any belief systems is a property and limitation of human language none of us can escape. We either choose to accept these limitations, which are extremely uncomfortable for most people, or we choose to think our own dogma as the only right dogma. If we choose dogma above all else, then people who do not share the same axioms as we do will seem to be insane in their thinking. This is human nature.

To the mystic, zero equals infinity. To the scientist, zero never equals infinity.

It most of the discussions on these threads the most basic axiom the theists have is "God exists". To the people who choose science or atheism over religion, the theists are irrational and insane. And the theists think people who do not choose to accept the divine nature of existence are damned to a life of misery empty of any real meaning. The two ends will never meet.

In mathematics where realty is not an issue infinity is valid. In the reality of science invoking infinity means something is terribly wrong. A mystic can say whatever they fancy without the constraints of reality to hinder them and if gullible people accept their word on faith that is up to them