Maya and mathematical analogy
#1

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-concept.html


"
Code:
In the Mangala Sloka(invocation) to this Beeja Ganita(algebra), Bhaskaracharya says that supreme which is Infinite, does not suffer diminution when creating the world out of Himself, or gain addition when the created word attains Laya(merger) in Him. For, if the addition of even a fraction can make a difference to the infinite, then it could not have been infinite before such addition. Similarly infinite cannot become less than the infinite when any thing is taken away from it. The Infinite is poorna, full and limitless Supreme. The Prapancha (Universe) which is infinitely varied, is also limitless Supreme, the limitless Supreme will remain intact. Therefore, if this Poornam ( the infinitely varied form of the objective Prapancha) is taken away from that Poornam (the subject which is Infinite), that Poornam, the subject Infinite, alone will remain.

This may be illustrated mathematically as follows : if 2 is divided by 2, the quotient is 1. With 2 as the dividend, if the divisor is progressively reduced as 1, 1/2, or 1/4 etc., the quotient will respectively be 2, or 4, or 8,etc., Thus the divisor becomes less and less, the quotient will become more and more. When the divisor is the least, that is infinitesimal, approximating to Zero, the quotient will be infinity. This is known as the Khaharam - Kha standing for Aakas, signifying poojyam (zero), haaram, meaning taking away or dividing.
"
Reply
#2
The term 'infinity' is subject to equivocation here, which can be exposed by replacing the word with its expanded working definition. In particular, the anthropomorphic characterization of the abstraction of infinity, by referring to it as 'Himself' is an instance of reification. In any case, the invocatory verse attributed to Bhaskara II (1114-1185 CE) in the above extract, is perhaps the least interesting portion of his work and need not come in the way of a fuller exploration of his mathematical contributions elsewhere in the forums. To strain to read metaphysics in the mathematical works of Bhaskara II would be about as productive as poring over Newton's alchemical and mystical works disregarding the Principia.
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#3
this is an interesting anecdote identified with Great Mathematician Srinivas ramanujan

"2 power n – 1 took as an equation that Ramanujan talked of representing the thought of God"
nis 1, value is 1, nis 2 value is 2, thus he explained advaitha, dwaitha...theories existence.

Mysticism has always been interesting to most of the greats e.g. Einstein also..., so i feel these greats would have found a similarity in a particular thought with that of mathematical equations.
This does not mean these people subscribed to that thought. They are just instances when our mind matches the profiles of clouds in the sky with animals, structures etc..

Certain class of people try to explain every old thing with current context and say our ancestors knew everything .. now science is also justifying..., and thus they try to enforce meaningless rituals on us.
For such people i want to answer just because the word "aNu"[atom] was known to ancient Indians or greeks that does not mean they knew the atom structure which we know today.
Reply
#4
They are trying to equate the concept of infinity as used by mathematicians and in vedanta. This line is a part of Brihadarnyaka Upanishad ("purnanch purna midam purnat purna udachyathe" which means That (Supreme Brahman) is whole; This (Creation-conditioned Brahman) is whole; From the whole (Brahman), the whole (Creation) becomes manifest. From the Whole, when whole is negated, what remains is again the whole.).
There are using the work of bhaskara to justify their interpretation. But this nonsense because Unlike mathematical infinity Brahman as explained in Upanishads is not just infinite he has other properties like consciousness and intelligence.(Book - The metaphysics of vedantha) . If we take this equivalence to its logical extreme it will result in negation of vedanthic metaphysics because mathematical infinity is not consciousness :laugh
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)