A Binary Spirit...

[mol]

Some people know my personal views and how I hold them. I never was up to discussing them (dont really know why) but I feel it might be a good exercise for me to look deeper into my Path.

Anyway, I feel that this might be the appropriate forum to discuss it in, because I feel (in some remote way) that it has a basis in the Kabbalah.

Note: This is a personal feeling.

This is why I would like to discuss it in here so that I may have some insight from those who are a little more connected with the Kabbalah.

This post is just a heads up. Hopefully I can sit down and write some stuff down and we can start tearing it down and throwing it around. I think it will prove to be insightful (at least for me.)

[bananabrain]

go for it, mol. i for one am intrigued.

bb

[mol]

I guess I could start by just making a bold statement and let the chips fall where they may...

In my chosen Path, I Know it to be as thus:

Our life is made up of 1's and 0's. Binary. Everything we do and how react is a binary decision. TRUE. FALSE.

Any piece of software can actually be built electronically. This is because, at its basic level...at the hardware level, software is binary. Machine language.

I have applied this to my life and my way of thinking. Some would call it straight Logic. I call it the Logic of Life.

Again, I dont know how to explain all of this except by just putting it out here and waiting for questions, etc.

NOTE: I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thought. I just thought it might interest some of you.

So....questions please. I dont know where to start.

[Revelation]

Ok, well, for lack of a better place to start, what do you feel this has to do with Kabbalah?

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
Ok, well, for lack of a better place to start, what do you feel this has to do with Kabbalah?

Just a feeling. I have never really tried to link the two, probably due to a lack of real pertinent knowledge on the latter. Thats where all of you come in. I want to know, after discussion, how YOU think it relates to the Kabbalah...if at all.

[bananabrain]

..i have reached similar conclusions in many respects. the thesis i wrote for my master's degree in information systems was predicated on the theory of complex systems.

the way i explain it to people is like this: OK - you're using a WP, say MS Word. have you noticed how sometimes you get bold bullet points even though the bold button isn't showing as down for that section of text? this is because somewhere inside the myriad inputs that affect the state of the system, the one that directly affects that particular outcome causally is set to TRUE instead of FALSE, except that precisely *because* it is so complicated, it is possible for both that to be TRUE and for the code which decides whether the button is down or up is set to FALSE. in a simple system, where you know all the inputs and transformations, you will also be able to accurately predict the output. in a complex system, such as a word processor, this may not be the case, so although you think you know all the inputs you may not, so it is possible for the outcome to be different from what you expect, EVEN if it looks like a causally direct route to you. either way, it's a simple matter of the output of a particular subroutine resolving to TRUE or FALSE - thus, as mol puts it, these results can be viewed in binary terms.

now what is true of a computer program is equally true of a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex, like, say a weather system. this is one of the reasons for the 'quantum weather butterfly' theory - namely, that a butterfly could theoretically flap its wings in central park and cause a rainstorm in beijing, because that small change of input may be the tiny push that is needed to tip the balance between that storm happening or not.

now, consider this example - imagine a man teetering for balance on the edge of a cliff. our butterfly may or may not land on his head, which could make the difference between whether he falls or not. now complicate the situation by having the man hold a trigger to a nuclear bomb, which will go off if he falls of the cliff. thus the whole situation turns on the flight of a butterfly - or not. this is why EVERYTHING everyone ever does is important - but you are unlikely to know all the outcomes of an action before you start, nor are you likely to be able to act upon the information if you have it, because of the knock-on effect of everything upon everything. not even the most powerful supercomputer could conceive of all the implications of a given action. in fact, i think a metaphysical application of heisenberg's uncertainty principle can also prevent you perceiving an action/particle without changing it.

now, in terms of whether this has anything to do with the kabbalah or not, i would say it is certainly part of the system of which the kabbalah is a part, namely Torah. in the Mishnah, the primary commentary on the Torah, it is said: "individuals are judged by the majority of their deeds and the world by the majority of its individuals. happy is the person who performs a good deed - that person may tip the scales both for themselves and for the world." - it is upon this principle that the system is based; that everything we do matters, so we'd bloody well better think about that. the kabbalah concentrates more upon the spiritual/mystical effects of our actions - use of the Divine Names and other kabbalistic techniques is tantamount to causing the mystical butterfly's wings to flap. this is why one should not practice these techniques without understanding their consequences. hence the action-based nature of everything jewish; it is based upon knowledge of the effects of these actions. this is why the RaMBa"M said that whilst ma'aseh merkavah was a 'small matter', the study of, say, permitted and forbidden types of locust was a 'great matter'.

i hope this makes sense, it's a bugger of a thing to explain clearly...

b'shalom

bananabrain

[mol]

Originally posted by bananabrain

now, in terms of whether this has anything to do with the kabbalah or not, i would say it is certainly part of the system of which the kabbalah is a part, namely Torah. in the Mishnah, the primary commentary on the Torah, it is said: "individuals are judged by the majority of their deeds and the world by the majority of its individuals. happy is the person who performs a good deed - that person may tip the scales both for themselves and for the world." - it is upon this principle that the system is based; that everything we do matters, so we'd bloody well better think about that. the kabbalah concentrates more upon the spiritual/mystical effects of our actions - use of the Divine Names and other kabbalistic techniques is tantamount to causing the mystical butterfly's wings to flap. this is why one should not practice these techniques without understanding their consequences. hence the action-based nature of everything jewish; it is based upon knowledge of the effects of these actions. this is why the RaMBa"M said that whilst ma'aseh merkavah was a 'small matter', the study of, say, permitted and forbidden types of locust was a 'great matter'.

i hope this makes sense, it's a bugger of a thing to explain clearly...

b'shalom

bananabrain

I think it made perfect sense. And we are coming to a point in this way of thinking that some people have a problem with.

One of the main questions that is always asked when I try to go in depth with this 'philosophy' is..."are you saying that we can only have two choices? So we either Love or Hate? Is it Black or white?"

And I say...yes...and no. People have the perception that Love is opposite of Hate. It is not. Love and hate are both 'feelings'. In fact, the opposite of Love is apathy. This is also the opposite of Hate. The same with colors. Black is not the opposite of White. They are both colors. The opposite would be to have no color at all.

Also, relating to comments of the Torah: "individuals are judged by the majority of their deeds and the world by the majority of its individuals. happy is the person who performs a good deed - that person may tip the scales both for themselves and for the world."

With this we can take that any Action will have a reaction. Even if it is so minute that we are unable to percieve it. Its just as if we are all turning on/off switches.

[Revelation]

Opposites cancel each other out.

Does apathy cancel out love? Or does hate cancel out love, bringing us to the zero line of apathy?

Imagine a graph. There is a sine wave that undulates between one ane negative one. 1 and -1 cancel each other out, bringing us to the 0 line. thus, the average value for a sine wave is 0, becuase it will always rise to 1 and always sink to -1. the value of 0 remains constant.

To put apathy at -1 and love and hate and every other emotion at 1 seems anathema to me. What is the 0 value then? What cancellation do we get by this manner of thinking?

Depending on whether or not we are deaing with pigments or light, black and white are not colors, they are both the absence of color or the totality of all colors. Black is the absebse of light, white is the summation of all light. They are opposites. They cancel each other out. The same, but opposite, is true in pigments.

I'm still failing to see how this relates to Kabbalah.

To assign values of 1's and -0's to everything negates the idea of degree. And without the notionof degree, how do we move from one sephirah to another? Ther must be a notionof degree--in other words, there are an infinite amount of jumbers between 0 and 1. Should we just throw all of those out and not consider the effect that *that* has on the system at large?

It seems to me that the butterfly argument, the very idea of Chaos theory, is bollocks if we throw out degree. Does the butterlfy have to land on the man's head to cause him to fall, or can it merely gflap its wings so close to thman's head that the air around him moves him off the cliff? If yes, then how close? Is it a matter of degree? Yes, I think it is.

[bananabrain]

"So we either Love or Hate? Is it Black or white?"

i also would say yes... and no. it really depends which way you look at it. love can be a good thing or a bad thing. our sages distinguished between the love of jonathan for david and the love of amnon for tamar. in the case of jonathan and david, the love was selfless and without cause. when the cause disappeared and despite the dynastic implications for jonathan, the love remained - thus they say that this love was untarnished by selfishness. when the cause of amnon's love for tamar disappeared, the love also disappeared. incidentally, i'm not talking about any sexual aspects to this here - in fact, it goes right along with the thinking that the sexual relationship between amnon and tamar was about the power and selfishness of amnon, of which tamar was the victim.

i would tend to say that the opposite of emotion is lack of emotion, in the same way that the opposite of light is lack of light - which is not exactly the same thing as darkness. opposites are tricky things. white includes black. thus we say 'Blessed is G!D, Who does good yet creates evil'. our sages speak of two 'inclinations', the YeTzeR Ha-TOV and the YeTzeR Ha-RA. of the former inclination, the 'good' one, they say: 'it is good'. of the latter, the 'evil' one, they say: 'it is *very* good'. this perhaps peculiar statement is explained thus: it is the Y-H-R that causes one to marry, succeed in business and build a home. we can see from this that opposition is largely a matter of perception - the second inclination, when balanced with the first, allows humans to live. when either is too dominant, this causes the system to overbalance or distort. kabbalistically speaking, this is what the AR"I considered to have been the cause of the Breaking of the Vessels - an level of Gevurah which unbalanced the system. this excess of Gevurah was what became trapped in the lower worlds and formed the QeLIPpOT, the husks of evil. but this doesn't mean that Gevurah was a bad thing - it just means that moderation is necessary.

"With this we can take that any Action will have a reaction."

yes and no. we can take that any action will have a consequence, but we will not necessarily be able to measure the reaction in any kind of newtonian fashion. in other words, the switch does something, but you're never going to know exactly what without understanding the entire system. to this way of thinking, it is, as revelation suggests, a matter of degree. if it was a really big butterfly, it might be easier to measure, but this butterfly would then be affected itself by other things..... but i'm sorry, the chaos theory end of things does still depend on 0 and 1, but just really really complicated permutations of it in the same way that any number can be expressed in binary. it's a useful tool, but i wouldn't get hung up on it - you don't need to keep reinventing the wheel.

in terms of whether a given concept 'relates to kabbalah' or not, i am thinking more in terms of whether a similar concept is used in kabbalah or not and if so how. i would caution that too much of a concentration on the binary aspect of things might lead one to an overly dualistic conception of the cosmos, which is a common mistake that is made - the kabbalistic formula spoken before all tikkun that one does is 'in the Name of the Unification of the Holy Blessed One[ness]'.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
Opposites cancel each other out.

Does apathy cancel out love? Or does hate cancel out love, bringing us to the zero line of apathy?

Imagine a graph. There is a sine wave that undulates between one ane negative one. 1 and -1 cancel each other out, bringing us to the 0 line. thus, the average value for a sine wave is 0, becuase it will always rise to 1 and always sink to -1. the value of 0 remains constant.

To put apathy at -1 and love and hate and every other emotion at 1 seems anathema to me. What is the 0 value then? What cancellation do we get by this manner of thinking?

Depending on whether or not we are deaing with pigments or light, black and white are not colors, they are both the absence of color or the totality of all colors. Black is the absebse of light, white is the summation of all light. They are opposites. They cancel each other out. The same, but opposite, is true in pigments.

I'm still failing to see how this relates to Kabbalah.

To assign values of 1's and -0's to everything negates the idea of degree. And without the notionof degree, how do we move from one sephirah to another? Ther must be a notionof degree--in other words, there are an infinite amount of jumbers between 0 and 1. Should we just throw all of those out and not consider the effect that *that* has on the system at large?

It seems to me that the butterfly argument, the very idea of Chaos theory, is bollocks if we throw out degree. Does the butterlfy have to land on the man's head to cause him to fall, or can it merely gflap its wings so close to thman's head that the air around him moves him off the cliff? If yes, then how close? Is it a matter of degree? Yes, I think it is.




Ok. On relation to the Kabbalah. I first noted that I didnt see the relation myself...just felt it. So, I dont know if it really has a relationship at all.

Your thoughts on sine waves and the relation to this 'philosophy (for lack of a better word)' are taking it out of context and relating it to something else.

I am discussing a binary system. Machine language. In the case of the sine wave, I could say. You either have a wave...or you dont.

Also, you said: "And without the notion of degree, how do we move from one sephirah to another? "

Well, from this statement I guess we can rule out my way of thinking from a relationship of the Kabbalah, because I see your point. It is still my way of thinking, regardless. Your thoughts on the numbers between 0 and 1 intrigues me. I would say this, from an EE standpoint...anything that is NOT 0 (or a positive value/voltage) is True.

[mol]

Originally posted by bananabrain

"With this we can take that any Action will have a reaction."

yes and no. we can take that any action will have a consequence, but we will not necessarily be able to measure the reaction in any kind of newtonian fashion. in other words, the switch does something, but you're never going to know exactly what without understanding the entire system.

I dont know if we are on the same page here. The concept of the On/Off switch is that we are talking of switches upon switches upon switches. Which does mean the understanding of the entire system is a reqiurement to know what Each switch will do. You might guess right a few times, but most of the time you will be totally off.

[bananabrain]

does it have a relationship... kind of. if it helps you to think so - and it certainly helps me - then yes, albeit an explanatory, systemic one.

we are on the same page, though, mol. in the same way that the number 4 is also a binary number and thus a series of switches on switches. with this in mind, although you could indeed model the ToL in binary, it's not strictly necessary, because you might as well use decimal. i suppose one might consider the pillars as the base 3 model, tzimtzum as the binary model, the four worlds as the base 4 model, the five levels of the soul as base 5 and so on. so yes, you might be right, but you wouldn't necessarily be right for the right reason, if you see what i mean, cause and effect being necessarily complex in a complex system. it's like proving the newtonian law - you might be able to do it in theory, but you'd be hard put to do it *exactly* without ignoring some of the inputs, transformations and outputs for the sake of simplicity.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Revelation]

Well, from this statement I guess we can rule out my way of thinking from a relationship of the Kabbalah, because I see
your point.

Hurrah! I win!
Just kidding.

It's pouring down rain here, and so I'm in a fabulous mood.

I have a problem with dualisms, becuase I think they require too linear a thought process, and I don't believe in linearness (for lack of a real word) especially with relationship to the Tree. In my experience, the Tree is not at all linear. I think the Tree works in many dimensions, and I think the Tree moves backward and forward through time--and sidewise while I"m at it. Therefore, I don't like duality, because it askes "Which way, north or south?" and I ask, "Why not up or down?"

[bananabrain]

:P , rev!

remember that the SY specifies 5 directions/dimensions, up/down, north/south, east/west, past/future and tov/ra, giving us kaplan's famous 5D hypercube - the 5-edged divine sword. but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

laters

bananabrain

[Revelation]

Actually, I was going to make reference to that myself, but then I figured that weouls benefit absolutely no one at this point.

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation


Hurrah! I win!
Just kidding.

It's pouring down rain here, and so I'm in a fabulous mood.

I have a problem with dualisms, becuase I think they require too linear a thought process, and I don't believe in linearness (for lack of a real word) especially with relationship to the Tree. In my experience, the Tree is not at all linear. I think the Tree works in many dimensions, and I think the Tree moves backward and forward through time--and sidewise while I"m at it. Therefore, I don't like duality, because it askes "Which way, north or south?" and I ask, "Why not up or down?"

I love the rain. So, I know where you are coming from. ;)

Now, is respect to "which way to go? north or south? why not up or down?"

The real question is "To go or not to go." Or how about, "To ask that question or Not."

[Revelation]

You're hopeless Mol. :p

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
You're hopeless Mol. :p

;) LOL

Hey, remember...I never asked or wanted anyone to agree with me here. Just wanted to spark a little thought. Which I think we have. I have enjoyed it thus far.

[Revelation]

But, Mol, just to furhter push your buttons...

Earlier you said, you either have a wave, or you don't."

From a physics standpoint, this isn't true.

Everything acts as both a particle and a wave, its just that most things have too much mass for their wave attributes to be fully visible. A photon, for example, acts as both particle and wave at all times. It is not possible to say wheter or not light is a particle or wave--it is very much both.

so now I guess you'll say : "Ok, its either a wave particle, or it isn't"

to which I say,

Dont make me get Debroglie on your ass.

(For the Debroglie reference, I direct you to google.com, because I am way too jumpy to make any thoughtful comment on his work :p )

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
But, Mol, just to furhter push your buttons...

Earlier you said, you either have a wave, or you don't."

From a physics standpoint, this isn't true.

Everything acts as both a particle and a wave, its just that most things have too much mass for their wave attributes to be fully visible. A photon, for example, acts as both particle and wave at all times. It is not possible to say wheter or not light is a particle or wave--it is very much both.

so now I guess you'll say : "Ok, its either a wave particle, or it isn't"

to which I say,

Dont make me get Debroglie on your ass.

(For the Debroglie reference, I direct you to google.com, because I am way too jumpy to make any thoughtful comment on his work :p )

Hehehah. Ok. I am not going to say its either a wave particle or it isn't." But is we are getting down to phyics then we are getting down to 'existence'. And to that I say. 'It exists or it doesnt.'

I did that for you rev, you are being far too hard on me today. :p :D

[Revelation]

I did that for you rev, you are being far too hard on me today

*grin*
Only because I like you, and I like this conversation.

It ether exists or it doesn't. Hmm. Ok. That's a challenge. LEt's make this into a Kabbalah conversation. I'm feeling up to it.

How can we apply this to the idea of TzimTzum? The notion of the divine contraction is how the universe was created. So, The Ein Sof carved from itself a hollow into which he poured his divine Light, creating a sephirah. In that hollow, the Ein sof could create something, but only once the Ein Sof had been removed from it, because two things cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

And yet, this is somewhat problematic, because Ein Sof must necessarily exist *everywehre*. THat's the notion of Limitlessness--if ther is some place it cannot exist, then it is not, by definition, limitless.

So, within the carved recesses, does the Ein Sof exist or bot? Or is it somehow both existent and non-existent?

:D

[mol]

And here is one for you...we often think of limitless as....size..well, what about this. Existence is a limitation as well. If Ein Sof is indeed limitless then...it must be able to exist and not exist.

?

[Revelation]

Ok, but if something can exist and not exist, where is your True False there? Hmmmmmmm?

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
Ok, but if something can exist and not exist, where is your True False there? Hmmmmmmm?

Some things even I cant explain. ;)

[Revelation]

This is an entertaining conversation, and I thought it might be fun to get more people in on it.

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
This is an entertaining conversation, and I thought it might be fun to get more people in on it.

I guess no one else is interested!

:p

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
Ok, but if something can exist and not exist, where is your True False there? Hmmmmmmm?

Exists = 1;
NotExist = 0;

That is where it really starts to get complicated...

[Mooncrow]

Perhaps there is some logic (sorry) to this. I think True and False is a little more black and white than Love and Hate.

So, let's look at this from another angle, back to Truth and False.

Love......do you Truly feel Love or is the Love False? Are you being True to your being? or False?

Each prospective path I can think of can be narrowed down to True or False.......Love, Hate, Knowledge, Power and even Apathy.

Knowledge can be True or False
Apathy......is it Apathy=True Apathy......or is it Boredom(False Apathy)


BB

Mooncrow

[Revelation]

MOl,

I thought the conclusion was that something could exist and not-exist at the same time. But how do you assign a 1 or a 0 to that?

[Mooncrow]

ummmm as soon as you define it.....ie open the box, then it's either a 1 or an 0.....right?

<runs down the hall screaming that logic wasn't part of the deal>

BB

Mooncrow

[Myst]

Originally posted by Revelation
MOl,

I thought the conclusion was that something could exist and not-exist at the same time. But how do you assign a 1 or a 0 to that?

That's easy, you don't. Everything is ( | )
(ie. both 1 and 0 at once [ok that was supposed to represent a circle with a vertical line through it])

I think you're all thinking too simply - ie. in terms of this plane of existence. Just because it doesn't exist in this plane doesn't mean it won't on any infinite number of planes.

Wouldn't it be funny if the real meaning of life was nothing? It was all just some fluke and there's no goal, no end, and no one up there who cares?

[Betty Ann Bongo]

Well, no, WillowRaven, *you* don't, but I think the point here is that Mol does apply 0's or 1's to everything.

[Myst]

I'm going by the pretense of one who does assign 1's and 0's to everything. Actually it is very logical to break everything down to binary until you get to that point, then you have to consider the infinite possibilities and see it both that simple and complicated - as in considering particles and universes.

[mol]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
I'm going by the pretense of one who does assign 1's and 0's to everything. Actually it is very logical to break everything down to binary until you get to that point, then you have to consider the infinite possibilities and see it both that simple and complicated - as in considering particles and universes.

Actually...this thread as such. In my Path...I do look at life and spirituality in binary. No...NOT Black or White. But rather, having color or the lack of color. The existence of color or the non-existence. The ability to be both existing and non-existing presents a rather complex number system, but rest assured it can be looked at as binary.

My exist=1, notexist=0 is a little simplistic. You know of different bit breakdowns. There are 16-bit integers and even 32-bit integers...well..Ein Sof having the ability to both exist and non-exist is the equivalent of saying it is a 2-bit integer while most things in life are 1-bit. So...

Ein Sof= 10 or 01 or 11.

And then, of course, we have to look at things with a grain of salt because we speak of our 'brand' of existence...when is not the only way to look at it. Only human arrogance could assume that is our way or the highway...

So to speak...

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
MOl,

I thought the conclusion was that something could exist and not-exist at the same time. But how do you assign a 1 or a 0 to that?

Oops. rev, see my previous post...I went from the end up... ;)

[Myst]

Originally posted by mol

My exist=1, notexist=0 is a little simplistic. You know of different bit breakdowns. There are 16-bit integers and even 32-bit integers...well..Ein Sof having the ability to both exist and non-exist is the equivalent of saying it is a 2-bit integer while most things in life are 1-bit. So...

Ein Sof= 10 or 01 or 11.


See I thought about it that way too at first, then the first instinct is to convert to decimal which throws the logic out of the window. Then I found I can see it being 10 or 01 but to me 11 would thus be equal to 1 (ie. 1 OR 1 = 1).. Then again to me 10 or 01 could suggest there has to be two particles (assuming you assign one digit per particle), or that each particle could have two digits assigned to it.. in essence the whole thing gets complicated.

The logic does make sense but it does get a li'l hard to follow. Especially when you try to mesh assigning a digit to a particle and the fact that something could both exist and not exist as makes it equal to a 2 bit assignment.... Thus why I thought of ( | ) as putting it that simply. For example 1 OR 0 AND 1 OR 0 could be 10 or 01 or 11 or 00 or simplified ( | ) ... then you go on the whole planes of existence/other ways of thinking tangents and... ;)

BTW the point in my posts here are to share my thoughts, not act like I know everything or I know what mol meant

[Revelation]

You're both trying too hard.

Just admit it. It's bollocks. :D

[Myst]

Originally posted by Revelation
You're both trying too hard.

Just admit it. It's bollocks. :D

8O

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
You're both trying too hard.

Just admit it. It's bollocks. :D

That was very insightful.

:rolleyes:

But, I am glad that most people feel that way...it means that my Path is very personal..as I am the only crazy ba$tard that seems to be able to work it out in my head!

:D

[Revelation]

Oh, don't go and get all offended. It was a joke.

[mol]

Originally posted by Revelation
Oh, don't go and get all offended. It was a joke.

LOL. Would take more than that to offend me! ;)

[slvr_phoenix]

Wow. Never in my life have I learned so much in so little, and yet learned so little. :) Or something like that. He he he.

Actually I think I kind of get where Mol is coming from, but things get complicated because he isn't breaking down the binary far enough.

Instead of 1 = exist, 0 = not exist, it should be 1 = true and 0 = false. The we can say that flag EXIST = 1 or 0 and flag NOT EXIST = 1 or 0. Therefore you can both exist and not exist at the same time. :) It's just a matter of staying true to binary as true and false.

Further, as it was said, degree can also be broken down into binary. Ultimately at some point there is a threshold in degree where to be on one side makes one thing happen, and to be on the other side makes something else happen. So the matter is not necessarily in defining a method of measuring degree, but in simply defining a bit flag of, "Has the topple point been reached" = true or false.

But also, to smack the chaos theorists who believe we have to control every little thing we do, the simple point is the blame doens't solely rest on one bit flag. Had "man next to cliff" flag been false, had "man holds nuclear trigger" been false, had even "gravity exists" been false, then the butterfly's presence wouldn't have mattered one way or the other. When complex situations are involved, no one point is the trigger. It's the complex pattern of many things that makes it happen.

And I think Mol has a point, that ultimately that complex pattern can be broken down into arrays of true and false bit flags.

Granted, I personally don't like to look at it that way because I'd rather see the program as a whole, not as a series of 1s and 0s. And I'd rather code in a high order language than binary any day of the week. :) However, that makes the 1s and 0s no less valid. It's just a matter of how we like to percieve what is there.

Like in the movie The Matrix, when they're looking at the screen of seemingly random green characters float by. Some people prefer to look at those characters. Some people prefer to look at the 1s and 0s those characters are comprised of. And some people prefer to look at the Matrix as people and places and things, not as characters or binary at all. :) Each way is an accurate way of viewing, and is ultimately correct, for they are all just different ways of seeing the same thing.

[mol]

Originally posted by slvr_phoenix

Actually I think I kind of get where Mol is coming from, but things get complicated because he isn't breaking down the binary far enough.

Instead of 1 = exist, 0 = not exist, it should be 1 = true and 0 = false. The we can say that flag EXIST = 1 or 0 and flag NOT EXIST = 1 or 0. Therefore you can both exist and not exist at the same time. :) It's just a matter of staying true to binary as true and false.


Actually I was trying to stay a little higher level, and that is the reason for not breaking things down.

Down to the most level I see Existence as a register, which is really why I reference 10, 01, 11, 00. I made a horrible integer analogy hoping not to lose anyone and ended up losing myself as well.

In this register we set up Flags like you mention.

Exist NotExist
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 0

There is going to be more to it than that...but there is your basic truth table for existence. As you see Ein Sof would be viewed as 11 in this breakdown. The Exist flag is set and so is the Not exist flag...thus having the ability to both Exist and Not Exist.

Thanks for letting me dive a little deeper into it slvr_phoenix. I dont want to lose anyone in this though...because what would be the point of discussion if no one understands what the hell is going on?

[slvr_phoenix]

I always like breaking logic down to it's most basic parts. But your way makes sense too. It's basically the same thing either way, just a different way of organizing it. :)

I think it'd be hard not to lose people though when delving into binary, bits, registers, flags, and misc. other computer lingo. Some people just aren't blessed with an understanding of computers. But then as such a binary path probably wouldn't make sense for them to follow anyway. I'd say do your best to try to lose us and see how well we hang on for the ride. How else will you shake the bugs out? Heh heh heh. :)

[Myst]

Instead of thinking in terms of computers you can even think of it as in ON and OFF. Like a light switch.... if that helps... :)

[ReverendAJS]

on this thread, but this is a subject I've been thinking about recently. I'm not sure I understand what values you assigned to exist/notExist, but I'll go with the last thing I followed out of all that.
If something doesn't exist, how can you assign a value to it? I don't have a Porche. My Porche is False, 0, therefor I have a Porche, becuase it has a value.
I'm writing an article for my technoPagan eZine about this subject for next week, so i coudn't have stumbled across this at a better time.
Would anybody like to write an article about this subject or chaos theory for my eZine? PM me if you're interested, I'd love to have some contributing authors.

[mol]

Think of 0 as a logic 0, like in electronic applications. Its nothing. But it is SOMETHING. When 5 volts is applied we can construe that as a logic 1.

So lets say something doesnt exist. Lets say a truck.

Lets do it this way!



typedef struct {

bool exist;
bool nonexist;

} truck;

truck mytruck;

mytruck.exist = 0;
mytruck.nonexist = 1;


In the example above I show that my truck, in fact, does not exist. But the concept of the truck NOT existing does exist. Lets make my truck exist and not exist.



typedef struct {

bool exist;
bool nonexist;

} truck;

truck mytruck;

mytruck.exist = 1;
mytruck.nonexist = 1;


Now my truck exists and yet, it doesnt. This shows some things can exist and not exist. When we were talking of Ein Sof and its ability to exist and not exist this is how I picture it.

[ReverendAJS]

okay I get that. You wanna write a few paragraphs about it? :D

[mol]

Originally posted by ReverendAJS
okay I get that. You wanna write a few paragraphs about it? :D

I wouldnt know where to start. :p

[ReverendAJS]

maybe it could come in installments. Well call it "the Mol Moment" or something like that:cool:

[Myst]

Where is the ezine?

[ReverendAJS]

Well it only has one volume sofar, written entirely by me, and I'm not really a writer. It's on my Yahoo! group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technopagantribe/
You have to join the group to read it. That's a pretty complicated process in and of itelf. Anyway, there it is.
Rev

P.S. everyone is welcome to post on my group and add to the eZine. Email me articles for the eZine (labeled as such), don't post them to the group.

[lucidfire]

binary spirit eh? Sounds interesting. The idea intrigues me being as it allows for a different approach to the positive/negative thing, to put it in a more mathmatical sense of "here and there" respectively; less relative and more universal, it becomes a matter of patterns how the binary is organized, rather than "you're either good or bad, or a strange combination of the two."

I like Myst's idea too, about 'on or off' like a light switch; ironically it's the metephor that was used in my electronics class for binary, on/off instead of true/false (true or false can be looked at as relative yes/no that is concrete in a way, whereas on/off is more transitional, mutable, and buildable)

It's interesting too, when related to magnetism, and how like attracts like; think of it fractally, where with the On and Off each one has states into itself, the On has an on and off state for everything that qualifies as "on" to it, while at the same time is itself an on or off state to something else higher.

interesting topic

[Rainx]

After careful consideration of this thread.. I have to wonder.. what the hell was I talking about (as Myst) anyway??!!

maybe I should print this out and reread it.