"The Metaphysical Significance of Pi" by Patrick Mulcahy
- Thread starter Siberia
- Start date
Buddy
The Living Force
Hi, Siberia. Interestingly, I've read so many different theories of so many subjects my head was starting to spin, so when I came across a report on coping with multiple theoretical approaches, I had to smile and think that this is just what I need right now. I thought the report was interesting, so have a look if you want:
_http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~prediger/veroeff/08-ZDM-Prediger-Preliminary-Version-Internet.pdf
In general, for purposes of regarding the various and sundry theories people create, that paper might show a use for juxtaposing the various frames of reference people have and more easily understand how...
So, I just finished reading The Metaphysical Significance of Pi. In line with the above, I can say that one impression is that Patrick Mulcahy did a fine job connecting various independent theories via their mathematical correspondences and then arranged the blending to make the mathematical constant, Pi, central to his model. He admits his presentation is 'symbolic' and explicitly states his belief that, despite current evidence to the contrary (see wikipedia reference below), the decimal part of Pi is eventually circular:
...and the wikipedia entry said this:
So, as stated, he admits all this. Even so, he continues and if one accepts his premises, then his deductions follow logically, although I fail to yet see how his result so far can be useful to people in any practical way, or practical in any useful way.
Other observations I made outside the mode of 'scientific enquiry':
Mulcahy starts off in the abstract, symbolic realm. He doesn't say how he got there from the observation and experiencing of his daily life, his personal environment, or his local reality, so he doesn't connect any empirical reality to his starting abstractions. Nor does he mention that he has never, in nature, seen a perfect circle. He simply accepts, without question, his own starting point. Also, at the end of the presentation, he doesn't leave this realm of symbols and link any of it to any personal or demonstrable observation or experience of reality. So, basically he has a self-contained theory.
Further, after reading this paper from beginning to end in one sitting, one sees a subtle error called the 'metaphysical shift', whereby his syntax makes that subtle shift from his willing admission in the beginning that all was proposition, ideas or whatever, to the ending where his syntax changes to reflect a tendency that when things are described as they are perceived, one then concludes that they have to be that way. For me, this metaphysical shift was foreshadowed with all those "as you know" phrases (6 in 66 pages), each of which attempted to gel in my mind, what came before, so that I'd accept the causal sequences offered. It didn't work for me.
None of that "proves" the theory wrong, of course, but I thought I'd mention the above in case it gives you a hook into a discussion in which you seem to be interested.
There are other ontological or epistemological issues that I would probably only point out if someone were trying to force the theory on me, but to explain those, I'd have to ask you if you have some grounding in quantum theory, ontology, epistemology...or if you've done a forum search for the various theories that Mulcahy ties together in his presentation, or if you've read the Wave series.
Have you read the Wave series? :)
Aside: the above are just my thoughts. Someone could see something I'm missing that would turn my view another direction, so FWIW.
_http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~prediger/veroeff/08-ZDM-Prediger-Preliminary-Version-Internet.pdf
In general, for purposes of regarding the various and sundry theories people create, that paper might show a use for juxtaposing the various frames of reference people have and more easily understand how...
So, I just finished reading The Metaphysical Significance of Pi. In line with the above, I can say that one impression is that Patrick Mulcahy did a fine job connecting various independent theories via their mathematical correspondences and then arranged the blending to make the mathematical constant, Pi, central to his model. He admits his presentation is 'symbolic' and explicitly states his belief that, despite current evidence to the contrary (see wikipedia reference below), the decimal part of Pi is eventually circular:
...and the wikipedia entry said this:
So, as stated, he admits all this. Even so, he continues and if one accepts his premises, then his deductions follow logically, although I fail to yet see how his result so far can be useful to people in any practical way, or practical in any useful way.
Other observations I made outside the mode of 'scientific enquiry':
Mulcahy starts off in the abstract, symbolic realm. He doesn't say how he got there from the observation and experiencing of his daily life, his personal environment, or his local reality, so he doesn't connect any empirical reality to his starting abstractions. Nor does he mention that he has never, in nature, seen a perfect circle. He simply accepts, without question, his own starting point. Also, at the end of the presentation, he doesn't leave this realm of symbols and link any of it to any personal or demonstrable observation or experience of reality. So, basically he has a self-contained theory.
Further, after reading this paper from beginning to end in one sitting, one sees a subtle error called the 'metaphysical shift', whereby his syntax makes that subtle shift from his willing admission in the beginning that all was proposition, ideas or whatever, to the ending where his syntax changes to reflect a tendency that when things are described as they are perceived, one then concludes that they have to be that way. For me, this metaphysical shift was foreshadowed with all those "as you know" phrases (6 in 66 pages), each of which attempted to gel in my mind, what came before, so that I'd accept the causal sequences offered. It didn't work for me.
None of that "proves" the theory wrong, of course, but I thought I'd mention the above in case it gives you a hook into a discussion in which you seem to be interested.
There are other ontological or epistemological issues that I would probably only point out if someone were trying to force the theory on me, but to explain those, I'd have to ask you if you have some grounding in quantum theory, ontology, epistemology...or if you've done a forum search for the various theories that Mulcahy ties together in his presentation, or if you've read the Wave series.
Have you read the Wave series? :)
Aside: the above are just my thoughts. Someone could see something I'm missing that would turn my view another direction, so FWIW.
Hi, Buddy,
Thank you for your comment. I basically agree with you, that his theory is merely a proposition based on willing admissions at some (many?) points.
But what I personally liked about his ideas is the diagram 16. I haven’t yet finished reading the Wave series, but this diagram helps me in a very practical way to better perceive some concepts thereof. Such as the ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ for example (the former probably being ‘the void of chaos’ and the latter represented by ‘the center of Monad’). His ideas about synchronicities sound interesting. I also got a better view of how such numbers as 3,6,9 might represent the transition (veil, end of cycle) points. Nothing new maybe, but for me it is quite useful to have a visual representation (approximate model at least).
So, I just hope that the book might be useful for such newbies as I am :)
Thank you for your comment. I basically agree with you, that his theory is merely a proposition based on willing admissions at some (many?) points.
But what I personally liked about his ideas is the diagram 16. I haven’t yet finished reading the Wave series, but this diagram helps me in a very practical way to better perceive some concepts thereof. Such as the ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ for example (the former probably being ‘the void of chaos’ and the latter represented by ‘the center of Monad’). His ideas about synchronicities sound interesting. I also got a better view of how such numbers as 3,6,9 might represent the transition (veil, end of cycle) points. Nothing new maybe, but for me it is quite useful to have a visual representation (approximate model at least).
So, I just hope that the book might be useful for such newbies as I am :)
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
