Thursday, December 23, 2010

TSK (Time, Space, Knowledge) Reflections

TSK (Time, Space, Knowledge) Reflections

I took a look at this author again, this time with understanding having become more familiar with the Buddhist tenets and issues of philosophy. Otherwise, it is too clear to read even with his specialized use of ordinary terms.

He does not claim his work is Buddhism and does not mind if someone thinks that. He has worked in America for at least 25 yrs and was trained in the Tibetan school. I was interested in what may have been lost in the translation in such an immigration to another culture. In a sense we all are immigrants to our own futures (although this in his system could be a conceptual error). I ask myself, further, why are we philosophers and scientist driven to such work - Why did Aristotle not stop what he was doing when challenged by the Roman centurion? I note many of you posting just before the holiday- clearly, somewhere in the reflections and the many faces of the God particle space in the internet, Tulku is right we share a dialog. We do not know if we are of the same purpose and unfolding or as he says our time together could be just an alongsideness.

While I do not not yet regard this book as deep, and I have looked at it to see an example of a soul who does confess his mental state as a distance really as if that may hold some key for others or how he achieved his individual enlightenment (something I rather doubt now as useful or see as a contradictory message for the existence of the self and soul), I did find some cautious speculation in someone more modern to the metaphysics of the East- ideas that echoed what in mine I see as new and deeper philosophy. Clearly, in some of his terms and the fractal cover of his book, he has tried to adjust to the new ideas from philosophy- the second philosophy in particular or things like black holes and big bangs now considered in science. Of course the exercises in the end for a system of comfort or faith that may reassure the experience of our existence telling us one way perhaps how to live leaves me with boredom- but who knows? Sartre had a point that our philosophy should be living philosophy. (But alas, Marx is dead).

Well, some of this did influence a dream I do not want to report here while it is a holiday- a dream of mixed feelings as I awake. Holidays can take a tool on what we imagine the state of our friends and families. So I walk in the snow to the coffee shop as it should be closed for a couple of days and a motherly lady comes thru the snow bank to the large house and has to cross my path cautiously and says "what a beautiful day!" I reply pointing to the garden and second floor porch "especially with the memory of all the flowers in your garden."

So, seeing a pattern on the google logo today I copy it for a festive illustration for in a sense it covers the continents and all seems to arise from Hellas.

So Tulku cautiously says some of my more metaphysical insights and some of the way he sees space and time applies to such current insights of others. Is his zeroless not a similar issue to zero point considerations? That there is a deeper level of the nothingness as I maintained and called Null. Lampion 12-23-10: This morning I think what we call creative falls in that already vague difference between the null and the zero. Not so much the issue of the zero and the one.

But the issues are the usual ones that seem to shift over time. The still open questions of cause and effect and of aggregates of self and systems. The inadequacy of the traditional proofs of God and the ideas of faith and reason as if they need or can have a proof. Was Kant right in his awakening by Hume concerning the teleological proof? Was Hume that clear as to what becomes between the mind and the matter? Gardener was not a fan of the pragmatists yet said he had faith. His was the great height of the era of the skeptical enquirer. He mentions Russel who in his earlier days wanted a proof for induction. But did Russel not abandoned his dream a little too soon- that like the atheist Hoyle life has its intelligent design, that is there is some order to which the scientist believe is behind the chaos in the universe- and that on this are hopes of a general theory of everything.

Or are we still in delusion, in arguments that fill the gaps with emotional steps as Gardner observes- still, emotions as drama and intellect have both evolved in our species since early times and the creative poet as well the scientist now operate on a higher level than before and whatever we feel about time and space we still dream and engage with this force pushed under the rug of gravity we call knowledge.

Dynamics of Time and Space (Transcending Limits on Knowledge) by Tarthang Tulku ISBN 0-89800-266-4 (paper)

* * *

Kea said...

Ulla, such constants are always in our minds. ThePeSla, basically I do agree with you. In the context of this blog, a 'matrix' is not an elementary object from linear algebra.

* * *

facebook statuses today:

L. Edgar Otto Sometimes, looking back at the chessboard and some piece removed we can tell from the context what piece it was- it is much harder to do this, if it is possible, in seeing moves ahead of which the masters only see so few and far. Nevertheless, there are people in this world that I shall always miss at some state in th...e game long after the reasonable thing to do is resign until we lose or we find stalemate.

L. Edgar Otto Holidays are fun, sometimes hard, I woke up from a dream having not bought much in the way of gifts due to weather nor things for myself (to relearn to spend money) and the thought was- now I can afford guns. But walking in snow to coffee shop a lady crossed my path saying what a beautiful day- I said as she entered he...r house- yes, especially with the memories of your flower garden and those on your porch.

Or better still when matrices and time seems linear in the directionality of gravity:

Now, I am not sure which book I read about it in Gardner? TSK? but the idea was that chess players can sometimes in looking back at the game where a piece was taken off the board figure out from the context what the piece was. This had something to do with reflections on the movement of time, perceptions and the laws of the universe. Of course Gardner was careful to say he was not against the anthropocentric view. Well, in these higher metaphysics it is not clear at all that the laws of birthing universes have a range where the idea emotionally would be that we do not want to imagine most of them lifeless and empty. So these questions are yet beyond the frontier of our knowing and dealing with any sort of flat and empty geometry that sits around some idea of zeroless dimensionless spaces (matter occupying space or not ultimately or finding at some zero point its identity there in a relationship) be it on the macro or micro scales of things.

Still, in the game of chess to which it seems finite but hard to imagine so far into the possibility of some futures yet easy to recall- the black box of memory and knowing unto some purpose or direction- I am of the opinion that when we make chess blunders or when John Good kicks our ass in chess even on prescription drugs that we briefly jumped here and now into an alternate universe- be it of our minds or in fact.

* * *

And this Ulla, btw, is a problem of applying consciousness to some sorts of visualization- as if in fact we do have some control over our relationship to mass and time in the universe. Yes we can image cancer for example or anything that can in physical fact say make us allergic or make things worse even from such a height of general, even at a distance, concept of healing. I did not for example in my meditations on biology and the new physics pray- but acted as if there were micro time travel that in the present we see that- if we looked up the literature now there we would be closer to a cure for inoperable brain cancer- and Lo, it did occur that I find articles not there before in which although not cured it was something controllable people could live with as soon as the data was distributed. Alas, it was too late as all references to the lady vanished. Two things, if in some sort of fact, totally within this reality, we have such power to change things- whatever the general purposes of the universe are there is some restraint on what we can do- for example curse someone to jump into a river threatening to throw you in- they can come to the river but being of some value still, even to you, at best they are arrested and put in the psyche ward awhile. The other thing is that given the power and all the options at what level will one use it to change things? Certainly way back to change the fact of my brothers heart failure as a kid would be high up on the list, that list limited by what we seem to do to take up our time. It may also be that in the greater scheme of things and the intelligibility of the universe that none of this makes a difference- and why not leave people in the choice they make for their ignorance- in the end you determine if they exist for you? Then a third thing comes to mind- that some small changes here affects other parallel situations of which some of it we can access by dream- so one can do simple things here like change a path or not that solves a big change there in some place or time- yet, of how many such places are there- and of course what does this do to our sense of self and ideas of God- other than for the deep thinker we find all things in the world a limit to our imaginations?

We eventually come up to such ideas and have to deal with them. It is no wonder there are parallels in the unique and original and rediscovered physics whether the design is intelligible or not, whether our destiny has value and meaning or not. It is no wonder that the core logic of it all, even if the earlier states of religion and belief are more or less a copy of the holonistic idea of syllogism, that we have a hard time seeing or swallowing the logic in forms that may accept contradictions or some sort of negation of negation or affirmation. Antientropy, or some sort of antihiggs, ideas from recent blog readings, are a part of this reasonable but inadequate logic of our being. The ideas are intelligibly deeper than those offered to or by us at first blush.


  1. Your language... gives me headache.

    "as if in fact we do have some control over our relationship to mass and time in the universe."

    In fact we do this all the time. Every time we fly from a thought, or an awareness by doing things, every time we eat, not because we are hungry, but as a tool to keep us distracted from unpleasant feelings, every time we drink too much...

    Although I am a biologist I don't believe in the reductionistic picture of cancer. The cure of cancers has not improved in spite of all research. Why? Because we have the wrong approach?
    Every cell is our own, also cancer cells. They have escaped from our self-control, forming some kind of aggressive sub-self. Why do we need sub-selves? This is the same question as why do we need multiple personalities? We spilt our self into too rigid roles? And of course we can learn to live with it.

    It is about self-organization. And my thought is that it is possible to change things by thought alone. Biology has shown that thoughts are real motoral things happening, you can even train your muscles by thinking :)
    Thought is one of the most energydemanding processes we can have, because we think in the future, in as - if loops.

    Look at a little baby that learns to control its body, or a paralyzed person learning to control a computer by thought alone. Where is the difference?

    Do you belong to the group of people learning facts by meditation? Then be aware of your thoughts.

  2. Ulla,

    Glad you saw this post- sorry it gives you a headache.

    "Thought is one of the most energy demanding processes we can have, because we think in the future, in as - if loops."

    I particularly like this line.

    As if in fact... well, one should be careful in English clauses with "as - if" but I have only just learned this and as-if sometimes means quasi to me.

    It is easy to lay down a memory, but it takes a lot of energy to recall it- for computers anyway.

    There are great strides in reductionist oncology but as you realize there must be more to the picture- my quasics does offer parallel or what you call sub-selves...not all malignant as are our multiple chromosome superimposed patterns affecting personality.

    Collectively, I do consider a looping as-if scenario possible, a sort of instant here and now micro-time travel of awareness in awareness.

    I do not meditate (do we suppress dialog to lower levels- and how far? To where the photon leaves an electron?) but lately I listen to dreams.

    This essential question of multiplicity is of course one we all have thought about, the whole and part. And of course how it related to our identity over time. It can be a quantum topic as well some sort of new age zen metaphysics.

    The PeSla

  3. Ulla,

    I forgot this: the question to ask also is just what as far as a motoring connection to a thought it is we control- that is in the sense of where.

    If we fix a mouse pad to reflect or program certain textures as we explore a screen, what we see can seem like actually feeling what is on that screen as the texture. This raises the philosophic question as to where is anything we touch and how far away. Would the sands of mars felt at our feet be like being there? Would the appearance of something from all its dimensional view be the actual substance of that something? Or is there still more to what is the nature of mind than dreamed of in the natural use and applications to biology of quantum theory?

    The PeSla