**Essay outside of the NMT (No-Me Teaching) series 20**

**Various theories of Time "parse" different "compartments" or ranges indicated by "past pluperfect" & such grammatical terms**

Some Ramana Maharshi quotes:

*Man is always the Self & yet he does not know it. Instead he confounds it with the non-Self, Body. etc. Confusion is due to Ignorance. If Ignorance is wiped out, the confusion will cease to exist & the true Knowledge will be unfolded.*

*The thought "I have not realized", the expectation to become realized, & desire of getting anything. are all the of the workings of the Ego.*

*Be what you are. All that is necessary is to lose the Ego. That which is, is always there.*

*Even now you are that. You are not apart from it.*

*The degree of the absence of concepts is the measure of your progress towards Self- realization. But Self-Realization itself does not admit of progress, it is ever the same. The Self remains always in Realization.*

*The obstacles are concepts. Progress is measured by removal of obstacles to understanding that Self is always realized. So thoughts must be checked by seeking to whom they arise. Go to their source & they will not arise.*

*When one daily practices more & more abiding in the heart, the Mind will become extremely pure due to the removal of its defects, & the practice will become so easy that the purified Mind will plunge into the heart as soon as the Inquiry is commenced.*

*When you enter the inner stillness of Being, the heart-going Mind is called the resting Mind.*

*When unity is replaced by a variety of perceived phenomena, it's called outgoing Mind.*

*Know that the Consciousness always shines as the formless Self, the true “I”.*

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series:

*:*

__Quantum Reality 4 (beyond the Time issue)__
Quantum
Reality veers from Classical Physics, apart from other ways, by directly
confronting & questioning

*Materialism*(or the new & improved term*Physicalism*) head-on. As previously mentioned in the Quantum Reality 2 segment, doubting the*strongly objective*or*mind-independent reality*, the original (*& still officially “standard*”) Quantum Mechanics barely fends off the barrage of neo-Materialist counter-attacks & alternative*Realism*“fixes” to the “troublesome” parts of original Quantum Mechanics. But in that original (Copenhagen II Convention of Consciousness-created Reality) Quantum Mechanics is still only*weakly objective*at “best” or full-blown Quantum Idealism at “worst” (*from the Materialist viewpoint*).
As also
previously mentioned in the Quantum Reality 2 segment, the statements of
Quantum Mechanics remain consistent between Minds discussing its phenomena, but
it still stays contained within speculation within the Mind, though predictive
of observations, “better” than is Classical Physics in the small-scale &
other applicable domains. Bell ’s-Theorem,
etc.). Way “back in the day”, Immanuel Kant generally raised good relevant
questions & later “copped-out” with some lame concessional answers in his
so-called Transcendental Idealism (

*Realism*falls as contradicted by Quantum experiments (such as Double-Slit, Delayed-Choice, Quantum Erasure,*that happened to be less transcendental than other versions of Idealism*), foreshadowing the Madison Avenue Ad-men*Newspeak*maxim: whatever be the inconvenient truth, deny it with its opposite.
Anyway, Kant
asked whether

*Realism*was at all meaningful? He then further asked whether & Classical Physics could be a steadily converging approximation & ultimately “absolutely true” description of the purported “Reality”. The 1**part holds up pretty good (**^{st}*“approximation” in an ever evolving improvement process*) but fails outrageously & totally in the 2**part**^{nd}**–**“absolutely true Reality” (*even assuming for the sake of discussion that there “is” such an Objective Reality*).*Neo-Realism*even believes that all its own mental inventions**–***nuclear particles, electrons, quarks, strings, force fields, etc.*are “actually” real entities, beyond convenient mechanisms in their approximate model.
To
re-iterate,

*mind-independent*Reality is that which would exist even if conscious beings did not exist. Imagine a mostly “dead” Universe with nothing both alive & conscious to know about it. Why even talk about it? And talk about it to whom, & by whom? Such is an empty speculation in an empty Void. It’s the very similar inverse of the old Philosophical Conundrum: “what if nothing at all existed?” or equivalently, “why does anything exist at all?” Who would we be talking to then & who would we be. That crucial “What am I?” question (*Shankara’s version*) is not an idle question, its fundamental.
Classical
Physics or any other Realist Science has not the slightest plausible
explanation of the obvious fact of Consciousness. Overlooking the critical
failure, brushing it under some

*epi-phenomenon*rug is sheer madness.*Realist*Science may furnish Technology income by dint of its approximate fidelity, but that is*no***–***proof*of actual Reality. Success is always temporary & can never be proof of the Model that supports somewhat successful strategies. Any Map may get you to your momentary destination, but is never the Territory in itself, nor does your latest “arrival” prove that impossible equation. As a lesser issue, the partial success of a Map does not rule out other & possibly better Maps, even at the analogical level of Maps or Models. Even our Sense Perceptions & mental Conceptions are only Maps & Models, analogies at best (*& pure Imagination at “worst”*).
Immanuel,
later Positivists, the Marburg School neo-Kantians, etc. have only remedied the
gap to the weak extent that, while unprovable,

*Realism*need not be “wrong” just because you can never prove it (*like the Multi-Verse, for instance, but that is weak comfort*). A more sober appraisal must stop at the description of*Realist Science*as*mathematically synthesized relations between observed phenomena.*
We have
Galileo & Newton to thank for the arbitrary models & inventions that
have however resulted in the remarkable empirical success of Science, but that
luster has blinded us to the fact that (

*like the blind men describing an elephant*) we are still groping within our own Imagination. On the other hand, Eugene Wigner’s question “as to why Mathematical Physics is as unreasonably successful as it is” provocatively supports the possibility the our so-called Universe or*RWOT real-world-out-there*is itself a mental creation from the get-go. In other words, mental constructions of Mathematics may fit the Universe so well because the “Universe” is itself a mental construction.
While we
exposed the confusing “mess” of alternate theories of Time in a previous
segments, the other shoe that Kant questioned, that of Space can be
sufficiently dismissed with the following over-short summary from Special
Relativity: “absolute void space is nothing & (

*as declared by the Eleatic Philosophers, ‘nothing is nothing’*) Nothing is that which does NOT exist. So-called Space is the term we use to collect all the relationships & distances between postulated Objects, & not an empty “thing” in itself (*not even a “container” like Cartesian Coordinate Space*). But the very definition of a*Material*Object (*Descartes’ res extensa*) require extension in 3-D Space. Space is certainly 4-D (*or of more String Theory dimensions*) if any “dimensions” really apply at all. An inconceivable “*object*” that has no dimensions surely resembles a “thought” (ala Sir Arrthur Eddington’s take on Quantum Mechanics) more than anything Material.
One last
issue regarding Space concludes this segment, that arising in the 19

**century from the contrasting**^{th}*empirical*poles of Helmholtz & Riemann, respectively, considering the continuity of an Object when translated or rotated in Space. Does such movement “change” the Object or is the Object, not only**–**theoretical*mind-independent*, but also Space**–**independent, that is, the same no matter where & how e situate the Object. Such question entail, among other things, the*curvature*of Space (*the General Relativity issue*) & the constancy of that*curvature*which is of course dismissed by Einstein’s theory of Gravity.
The
assumption “that Objects exist independently of place” is valid if & only
if the properties of Objects remain invariant when moved. That is, if an Object
changes place, that is a movement. And if the Object continues to have the same
properties in any different place, then its properties are invariant under
spatial

*transformation*. Riemann noted that, without this assumption, the units of comparison that are the basis for Space measurements (*light rays, rulers*,**…**), the bases of distance measurement, no longer have the invariant properties on which one can base valid measurements.
The idealized
alternative, Riemann’s “Axiom of Free Mobility”, finds counter-part in the
Helmholtz idea of “rigid motions” that inspired Sophus Lie to formulate

*Transformation Symmetry groups*in terms of Group Theory. Both Helmholtz & Riemann were doubtful regarding that*idealized*alternative which Einstein’s*General Relativity*threw out the window, thus casting doubt about our assumptions about both Space &*material*Objects.

__Calculus for Yogis, part 2__
Mentioned in last section regarding the traditional
difference between Variables "

**" & "***x***" we considered "Dependent" & "Independent" Variables; "Intensive" & "Extensive" Variables. Taking the pair 1***y***:**^{st}*intensive*&*extensive*, we can note that*extensive*Variables*compare to gross amounts, while**intensive*Variables can represent more abstract principles, less measurable like*Qualia*. In that sense these latter tend to be more "Non-Dual", less gross & densely material. Where such an Analogy breaks down is along the*dependent***–***independent*axis thought to often run parallel to the "**"***y***–**"**" or***x**intensive***–***extensive*polarity.
In general, the Derivative is a

*projection*from the recent Past pointing to the immediate Future. This is the way we navigate in life, taking the very recent Past, &*projecting*the expected Future. So the Derivative, as well as being a slope, is a prediction, a*projection*, a best guess as to the immediate Future behavior of*y*, given the immediate Past behavior.
What happened to

*y*over the recent change in*x*becomes our best guess for what will happen to*y*in the next-most change. So the Derivative is all about our anticipation of the Future, our hopes & our fears, our guesses, with successful guessing balanced by reasonable*projections*. Since seeking Happiness, dictates all our choices, a*projection*in the immediate Present, pointing towards an estimated Future, like the Derivative is like an*arrow*aiming at, seeking, pointing to desired Happiness, at least in our Analogy.
The other shoe coming down under the foundation of Calculus,
the twin counterpart to the Derivative, is the inverse of the Derivative. This inverse is called the Integral. The Integral,
which we will also attempt to simplify, establishes a longer record of the
previous Past, accumulating results, averaging to some extent, &
establishing a base of Reality & Identity, again least in our Analogy.

One could almost say that the Derivative was a continuous
reevaluation. our changing of our course.
But actually the course is an issue of the curve itself, the Function. That's the course over Time, or over Space, are
over Angle etc. Applied to the Derivative, this is an ongoing perspective, how
I look ahead, a viewpoint.

In that sense the
Derivative does compare with the actual motivation for every changing course,
every maintaining the course, every choice & decision. That motivation is the seeking of Happiness, &
so that is one of the Analogies for which we can use the Derivative. The Integral on the other hand is more like
the accumulation of Memory, of things learned, of opinions solidified, by
accumulation over Time, or Space, or Angle or whatever.

An interesting feature in Math is a small raised number or Variable
put immediately to the right of a number or variable such as 3 or

*x*. This raised, small number is called the Exponent & it tells you how many times to multiply the number or Variable by itself.
So

*x*to the 1,*x*^{1}*means multiply**x*by itself just one time (1x) & so it just**=***x*.
An Exponent of 2,
as in

*x***or**^{2 }*x***"squared" means we multiply**^{ }*x***times**^{ }*x***,**^{ }
If

*x*happened to be 4, that latter would mean, multiply 4 x 4**=**16.
Continuing our elementary introduction to Calculus, we can
look at the Derivative of any simple Term, which means a Variable to a given Power
or Exponent, with a leading numerical Coefficient.

So a term like 7

*x*"cubed" or 7*x***"to the 3" has a Derivative of d**^{3}*y***/**d*x*when*y*equals 7*x*to the 3 that is simply found by taking the Exponent to multiply the Coefficient & then dropping the Variable to a Power or Exponent that is 1 less.
So the Derivative of the 7

*x*^{3}*is 3 times 7**x***= 21**^{2}*x***& this applies to every Power.**^{2 }
Now in our story of elementary patterns in Calculus, it is
interesting to look at various Exponents or Powers of the number, or Powers of
a Variable, including taking

*x*to the 0 (*Zeroth*) Power & multiplying it by any Coefficient.
To multiply something by itself is 0 times does not leave
you with 0. It curiously leaves you
with 1.

For those a little more familiar with Algebra, this can be
easily seen (

*without the distraction of fuller explanation for now*) on the following:
1

**=***x*^{a}**/***x***=**^{a}*x*^{a–a}**=***x*^{0}
So no matter what be the number or Variable that is raised
to the 0 power, the result equals 1. In
that sense. when we put a number in front of

*x***, this is just that number times 1. So, 7**^{0}*x***simply**^{0 }**=**7 x 1**=**7.
So we end up just with the Coefficient, the number, because

*x***= 1. Inversely, 7 = 7 x 1**^{0 }**= 7***x***so we can see that the Derivative of a constant number has us multiplying the Coefficient by Zero.**^{0}
So when we take the Derivative of a simple number, we can first
think of that as that number multiplied by 1, or that number multiplied by some
Variable

*x*to the 0 Power because the latter is simply 1.
So using the "Power Rule" exemplified above, the Derivative
of 7 = 7

*x***will be 0 times the 7 & so = 0.**^{0 }
So a Constant number or a function like

*y***=**5 has Zero or "no" Derivative. Seeing that its graph is a horizontal flat line, it makes sense that it has no slope.
Along with the Zeroth Power case, the First Power is another
kind of "special" & simple case.
First we note that the Power, 1,
multiplies the Coefficient, leaving it unchanged. Then, dropping the Variable
to a Power or Exponent that is 1 less, this reduces the First Power to the
Zeroth Power, or the number 1. The Derivative
then is just the Coefficient, the number when the Variable to the Zeroth Power equals
1.

So for the Derivative of a Term with the next higher power, 7

*x*= 7*x***, we take the 1 & multiply the 7 by the 1 & drop the power of**^{1}*x***to 0 which equals 1 so did Derivative of 7**^{ }*x***= 7×1 = 7. So the Derivative of a number times a simple**^{1 }*x***is just a number itself.**^{ }
The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:

or with Caps-sensitive:

Duplicates have been available on

**:**

__jstiga.wordpress.com/__
[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

"school of Gaudapada , Shankara, Ramana, Nome

"

*There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.*"**–**the "no creation"**–***Ajata Vada*
## No comments:

## Post a Comment