[MD] Equations for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark [Exacto mentioned]--

[Previously]:
> My formula is simply relying on what I have read in this forum.
> Yes, there can be a fundamental disagreement on the premise.
> This would of course immediately make such an approach
> meaningless.  If we do not agree on the assumptions then we go
> nowhere.  The words that you use to describe Ultimate Reality
> within your system of thought also breaks it up into components.
> The purpose of the components is to provide further understanding.
> It is saying that the concept of Ultimate Reality can also be
> described as such and such.  Such descriptive sentences are
> equations in themselves.  The formula that I provide is simply
> a theory.  By subjecting the theory to mathematical analysis,
> we can prove or disprove it.  If nothing else, it leads to other ideas.

Your persistence and enthusiasm have won me over, Mark.  I'm still convinced 
that our knowledge of reality can't be extended by mixing science with 
religion (or philosophy), and I'm not sure how Horse will react to this 
novel analysis of the MoQ.  However, inasmuch as you are willing to apply 
symbolic logic in the attempt, I'll humor your efforts and do my best to 
filter out any false conclusions as I see them.  (I recall having a similar 
exchange with Ron [Xacto] a couple of years ago.  It went nowhere; but since 
Ron probably has more familiarity with logical equations than either of us, 
I'd feel more comfortable if he were the principal "logician" for this 
project.)

> The intent was to segregate the subject to allow those who found
> the notion to be somewhat sacrilegious to skip the subject.  As I
> stated then, this is just an off-road adventure.  What I had suggested
> was that in order to understand my inspiration for the subject you
> read (or reread) the essay by Dobson:  The Equations of Maya:
>
> http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
>
> Coupling the knowledge of Religion with that of Science is a topical
> subject.  Posts on this forum try to do it.

Yes, I received your previous post and reviewed the Maya page you 
referenced.  Here is a seminal quote from Dobson's essay:

"Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that the Universe is the 
Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha, 
nimitta).  He said that time, space, and causation are like the glass 
through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, 
It appears as the Universe.  So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's 
the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand 
why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

It appears that the Swami had equated the ("apparitional"?) Universe with 
Reality prior to
analyzing its relational principles, which is the basis for my skepticism. 
Nonetheless, it's at least conceivable that establishing logical equivalents 
can help clarify some of the concepts posited for the MoQ as well as for 
Essentialism.  If so, it may be worth pursuing toward that end alone.

So, Mark, you've got a reluctant 'critiquer' to monitor the metaphysical 
side, and (if Ron is amenable, as I anticipate he will be) a symbolic 
wordsmith as coach for the logic side.  It's up to you to decide what 
postulates are worth formulating as equations (constants?) and what 
conclusions you feel can be drawn from the results.  Please keep me informed 
on your progress and any difficulties you encounter along the way.

Cheers and good luck with this project!

--Ham