« Is Buddhism like a western religion? | Main | Too many skeptics? »

August 25, 2014

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d26869e201b8d05c389e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A different kind of zero:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Haha, my thoughts exactly. By the end of it, it reminded me of "enjoying a merry samadhi." Very nice film!

The writer was inspired by the Bible:

'It was originally inspired by the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. “Emptiness, emptiness, emptiness, all is empty.” The speaker of that, Koheleth — which is where I got the name Cohen [The Zero Theorem’s main character] — is basically bemoaning the fact that if there is no afterlife, what does it profit a man to live a good life, or any kind of life? It’s the first Old Testament complaint, I believe — some kind of life after death.'

Man, you're even crazier than I am. Keep it up!

p.s.

The Captcha thing is a good case in point. We can see the numbers that a computer cannot. We can see them because we can see "that looks like....." and we guess correctly. We are so good at it that we don't recognise the fact that we've taken fuzzy low-contrast blobs and found numbers not interestingly shaped ant colonies. We never thought the ant colony thing was an option.....

Nice article which I fully agree with.

Saw this film last month. Very nice one, but then I´ve enjoyed most of former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam´s flicks.

The main character Qohen Leth in the movie (played masterfully by Christoph Waltz) always refers to himself as "we" whenever he talks with another person. This, in a way, highlights his dialectical mind that tries to hack the zero theorem like some mathematical koan given to him by his boss the "management" played by Matt Dillion.

Anyway, not to reveal the whole plot its a movie worth seeing with some nice twists.

Sigh!

What is the difference between 'something' and 'nothing'? When 'something' is exceedingly small then when you look you can see either. So the universe is seen as a field of static. The total value of the static is zero (but may not be, may in fact be slightly positive) but each little bit may be zero or +/- tiny-bit.

Unrelated to this. The brain has two styles of thinking that we recognize (there are more).

One style is obvious - thoughts. Thoughts are concepts that are clearly defined into things which are is/is-not. This iS an Elephant, This IS NOT an Elephant, This is LIKE an Elephant. It does not cope well with "This is an Elephant on Tuesdays and Mondays and if you look at it kinda funny". It is basically a digital world.

The other style that we recognize doesn't fit into thoughts. It is fundamentally an analog world. So in this world there is a very tall spike in a wave that represents how Elephanty something might be. If this spike is very tall then the thing is extremely Elephanty - enough so that we might call it an Elephant. If the spike is very small then something might be only slightly Elephanty - say a mouse going on holiday (4 legs a long nose and a trunk). But in this world everything is Elephanty to a greater or lesser extent.

At the same time everything is Treeish to a greater or lesser extent and so on.

So one part of the brain is dealing with concrete things. Another part is working in a very fluid way without concepts. They both are part of consciousness and it is the case that a very large Elephanty spike would also appear in consciousness as the concept 'Elephant'.

Intuition manifests out of this analog world. If something that is very Elephanty is charging towards you it's best to get out of the way. You don't need to be 100% certain that it's an Elephant to realise that an Elephanty thing hitting you is going to hurt. It can be a very fast mode of thinking.

Now add in Pattern Recognition - another important unsung brain mode. If I see a herd of Elephanty things it might be there or it might be a football team kicking up dust. Which am I seeing correctly? When I look at a tree quickly I might see a tiny blob of colour and shapes. Pattern Recognition will take this, have a guess and say "Squirrel". When I look again it might see "Leaves, branches and some sunlight arranged in a Squirrellish shape".

Now imagine that you could see the Squirrel but be unable to see that it might also be "Leaves,branches etc in a Squirrelish shape". Imagine that in general you never get to look twice so you never know which one is most true - an actual squirrel or something that looked like a squirrel. But still you have to act (or not).

I seem to deliberately choose to manifest who is Zen-Teachery but is not a Zen-Teacher. But am I lying? Am I really a monk with a cellphone at Antai-ji?

Physics and Zen are like Granite and Mice. They are not related.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

My Photo