Science Forums

0=2, Popular Occult Cosmology = CRAP (Aleister Crowley)

Recommended Posts

http://www.lilytears.com/spirituality/thelema/qabalah/universeequation/

EDITED: I HAVE EDITED THIS POST TO PROVIDE THE LAME-DUCK EQUATION:

Ah, but what we started to do was

discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write

it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index of 0<sup>1</sup>, or 0<sup>2</sup>,

or 0[/size]<sup>n</sup>[/size].

And if our Nothing is to be absolute Nothing, then there is not only no

figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 0<sup>0</sup>.

What is the value of this expression? We

proceed as before; divide.[/size]</p>

<div align="center">

<center>

<tr>

<td rowspan="2">0 = 0<sup>n-n</sup> = 0<sup>n</sup>

÷ 0<sup>n</sup> =[/size]</td>

<td style="border-bottom: 1 solid #000000" bordercolor="#000000">0<sup>n</sup>[/size]</td>

<td rowspan="2">?[/size]</td>

<td style="border-bottom: 1 solid #000000" bordercolor="#000000">1[/size]</td>

<td rowspan="2"><sup>.</sup>[/size]</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="border-top: 1 solid #000000" bordercolor="#000000">1[/size]</td>

<td style="border-top: 1 solid #000000" bordercolor="#000000">0<sup>n</sup>[/size]</td>

</tr>

</table>

</center>

</div>

<p align="justify">Of course 0<sup>n</sup> ÷

1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0<sup>n</sup> = <span style="letter-spacing: -2pt">oo</span>.

That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely

great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the

"infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an

indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 0<sup>0</sup>

can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."

Share on other sites

Welcome to our forum jimi,

It is customary,.... well,...actually one of the few rules here, to make a statement about links rather than just post a link. It is easier for us to reply if we know more of what you think. The link doesn't seem to work for me, could you check that it is correct please? Please also take a minute to read the rules for posting on the FAQ page.

Thanks.

Share on other sites

It's crap, obviously, but enjoyable crap for a change. However, if Jimi does not post any other messages just delete this thread.

Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Tormod

It's crap, obviously, but enjoyable crap for a change. However, if Jimi does not post any other messages just delete this thread.

Sorry, I initially went to the trouble to copy and paste all the relevant HTML into the original message, but it showed up as one gigantically LOOOONG scroll-to-the-right post, so I just provided the link and deleted my original text.

Why is it crap?

Well, obviously, he starts right off giving 0 an index to represent spatial dimension. First of all, in absolute nothingness, there is no such thing as spatial dimension, so it is illogical to even decide on an index of 0.

Secondly, he takes the index of 0 and makes it 0-0 and further changes 0-0 to n-n. As soon as you jump into the realm of algebra, you have entered the realm of infinity. Because algebra deals with quantities, Crowley's equation of 0n-n / 0n-n = 1 is bogus. The 1 is actually 1 quantity of nothingness or zero.

So, he has already mislead us in order to attain 1. Howver, in nothingness, there are no quantities.

He then divides this 1 by 0 to come up with infinity, which is what he was after all along.

However, his final equation is 0/infinity... which is still zero.

Even with his bogus attempts and misdirection, he has not shown how something can come from nothing. He has merely shown how one could arrive at a null set starting from infinity.

Share on other sites

Thanks Jimi, most enlightening.

I wrote a feature on "the power of 0" a while back with some similar ideas. Number theory has a lot of cool traps in it. I suspect most links will be broken by now:

http://www.hypography.com/topics/powerofnothing.cfm

Tormod

Share on other sites

Awesome, thank you! I can't wait to read your post and share it with some blockheads I know... ...

Share on other sites

Yes it definately seems like the site you point out is some form of new age mumbo jumbo. Before even getting to the math part, on the specific page you post:

"A. We are aware.

B. We cannot doubt the existence (whether "real" or "illusory" makes no difference) of something, because doubt itself is a form of awareness.

C. We lump together all that of which we are aware under the convenient name of "Existence," or "The Universe." Cosmos is not so good for this purpose; that word implies "order," which in the present stage of our argument, is a mere assumption."

If "We are aware ... of existence...", this would require that "existence" is organized/ "ordered". We can not "be aware" of SOMETHING if that SOMETHING has no order/ pattern to recognize.

Thus their assertion that

Cosmos is not so good for this purpose; that word implies "order," which in the present stage of our argument, is a mere assumption."

This seems typical of new age mumbo jumbo in trying to disguise nonsense in a psuedo-scientific package.

I do wonder two things however.

1) Why do you find this particular site/ concept/ POV particularly distasteful? (with all of the other distasteful psuedo-science out there?)

2) How/ why did you pick this venue to "expose" it?

It seems very apropriate here. Just curious how you found our little group and what about us you found interesting.

Share on other sites

I've been having the discussion with some wise old sage type of dude about nothing when he pulled that out as "proof" that something can come from nothing.

In fact, despite the fact that I proved the glaring errors in many different ways, this person's final word was:

"There Cannot be Something without Nothing and there Cannot be Nothing without Something.

Nothing does not Exist, Something does Exist.

<u>Both</u> can be/are <u>Experienced</u>.

Have Fun!"

I ask you, is there anything that can be said in response to such silliness?

Share on other sites

Sounds like you ran into a Creationist. If you had run into him hard enough you would have knocked him unconscious and saved yourself a lot of trouble! Though their thought process ability does not change much between the states.

The best answer you can give to:

"There Cannot be Something without Nothing"

is to remind them that the total sum of energy in the entire universe at any one time is ZERO. Thus "something" is just a localized temporal anomally for "nothing".

That should keep em busy for a long time!

Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

The best answer you can give to:

"There Cannot be Something without Nothing"

is to remind them that the total sum of energy in the entire universe at any one time is ZERO. Thus "something" is just a localized temporal anomally for "nothing".

That should keep em busy for a long time!

NO! That would prove this guys point. He'd simply say, "exactly, so you see... something comes from nothing."