Science & Non-duality: Mathematics as Hidden Reality

One day, I will attend one of these conferences. For now, I feel privileged to be able to attend via online. We are so fortunate to live in this era – a time when – LOVE & KNOWLEDGE are not separate functions, nor enviable characteristics “out there.”  We can actively pursue our dreams with all these RESOURCES at our fingertips!  What’s not to get excited about?!?!

Special note: I’m thinking of a blogging pal, Debra, over at Ptero Card who posts stimulating subject matter, often writing about Carl Jung, Hillman, the Green Man, Alchemy, and more… Thank you for posting that video in order for me to be able to “have the time” to listen in – and participate in your current enquiries. Here are some of my current ones. I think you’ll find that there’s some overlap in our “venn diagrams”/ circles.  “To Science and Non-duality” 🙂

20 thoughts on “Science & Non-duality: Mathematics as Hidden Reality

  1. Hi Ka!

    Thanks so much for posting one of your favorites, and for the shout-out. I agree with you that we are so very fortunate to have access to so much sharing of wisdom. I look forward to listening to this later today.


  2. I also plan to do the same. Life is really blessing with us with literal knowledge at our fingertips and access to one another. I read recently that the internet is in fact helping us team up with our soul groups quicker and seamlessly. Perfect topic for the new Aquarian energy coming in 🙂


  3. Wow, Ka… I’m really glad I watched that through to the end. Very powerful and touching. I had the thought when he began speaking about the double slit experiment, “man, we’re still talking about that nearly a century later… why?” And then it hit me in almost the next breath, “maybe that’s because most of the world still hasn’t heard about it, or really felt or wondered deeply what it means….” And then I thought, it’s a little like the resurrection of Christ, which I don’t mean in a religious sense, but in the sense of a human being passing through death and coming out the other side. That is an event, an experience, a happening, an experiment– like the double slit experiment– whose ramifications haven’t quite yet finished rippling through this conscious sphere in which we abide.

    And then by the second half of this video, I realized this is precisely the story this mathematician wished to share. About passing through death into holiness. So, so brilliant! Thank you… I think honestly the math in this presentation is merely an artifact of this person’s past, and training, and it is used as a language by the opening of the heart. That heart-opening experience can use any artifact nearby to tell its story… It is not particular, I don’t think, as Love embraces all of it… In this case, it was math…! But none of us need to learn math. The experience was not mathematical– it was completely normal. An encounter with one self… The discovery of a beauty that once found, cannot be avoided… And then, math… 🙂


      1. Michael,

        I’m so glad you watched and listened to the whole thing – THANK YOU! It was moving, and in a way – his story is so completely normal (even for a mathematician). Maybe that’s what I love so much about it. I appreciate the way you use the term ‘artifact’ in your comment, and I very much agree with you in terms of ‘whatever is available’ shows up to tell the story of one’s heart-opening (in the grand scheme of things, perhaps).

        Regarding the double-slit experiment, yep, he did begin with “most of you already know about…” it. I think that for him, he used it as a comparison between the broken radio as “spooky” behavior and the electron as “spooky” behavior. He noted that he had a preference in terms of what got him wondering more, but suggested it didn’t really matter which idea communicated “spooky” or unusual/unexplainable behavior best: they were essentially the same phenomena.

        One way of looking at his presentation is that every element contained some bit of ‘story telling.’ For me, the whole thing was well-orchestrated from his “nevermind” in the beginning of his presentation (with regard the computer problems, perhaps) to transhumanism (which personally I find frightening), to the E.E. Cummings poem about syntax. One could even say his talk, overall, was tangential. I loved it.

        Thank you for sharing your impressions,


      2. I can’t reply to your latest somehow, but anyway, I loved it, too. I like your view of the whole presentation, that it was all story-telling in a sense. Those words can get a bad wrap, but I mean it sincerely. One thing I didn’t say, that impressed me, was that he didn’t make this about math really… He didn’t even try to justify or prove his experience of touching this “other realm”. He just claimed his experience for what it was, which I loved. Because as one who has often seen beauty in math and science and on occasion fallen into the pitfall of trying to justify what we’re pointing at by the beauty of the stick that’s doing the pointing, I was glad he didn’t try to reduce Love– or direct experience of Self, or whatever we wish to call it– into some emergent property of math and logic.


    1. I am remembering now that I had originally listened to this one first (before Frenkel’s talk), and had gone to sleep while listening, as it was quite late. Thank you for bringing it back around again! 🙂 Experiences beyond infinity!

      1. Thanks for encouraging me to come back and have a look at this one, too, Ka! I made it through to the start of the questions and enjoyed it very much. I love to see the various connections and threads that have been woven through “it all”… I feel this video is a nice foil to the previous, in the sense that it is more like what I was describing in my earlier comment above– a well-intentioned and beautiful effort to establish that various aspects of consciousness and intuition are rooted in the “physical world.” I can’t always put my finger on it, but at some point this type of approach feels like training wheels, in the sense that it is a step closer towards acknowledging every law and class of order we have ever been able to identify, or will ever identify at work in physical fields and dimensions, are (here I go again!) artifacts of what exists without any dependence upon laws or entanglement or nanotubules or blackholes or any of it. Those are all just “things” that had to be, because of the absolute nature of that which always was… If I’m making any sense.

        To come at it another way, we could think of poems as being, like a mathematical equation, a meaningful pattern the author glimpses in the sea of all that is, and scribbles down. But the poem doesn’t make all that is any more than the equation makes the world. They are merely patterns recognized. A point of relationship. Strings and blackholes and entanglements are simply ways of defining relationships. There is a hope in science we will find the root pattern, the pattern of all patterns, but we never quite find it… It’s like trying to find the one relationship on which all others depend. You can’t really do it. It’s everywhere. We find more and more layers of beauty as we search, and I think it is wonderful, but I also think we could probably go on discovering mathematical and scientific relationships indefinitely… Just as we could write poems indefinitely, or songs, or create paintings or dance choreographies indefinitely.

        I am more drawn to the notion of Frenkel’s talk– that we just have to feel it, know it, be it, embrace it, accept it– than to the notion that consciousness is fundamental because quantum mechanics shows a connection between a protein in the brain and a wormhole in space. They are beautiful, but consciousness does not derive its existence and meaning from the artifacts it has produced. I guess that is the point to which I return. We run a risk in science of taking a particular pattern, and saying, “Look! This one here. This is how it is…” Just as we run a risk of taking a particular collection of words and saying, “Look! This one here. This is how it is…”

        Both approaches ultimately limit what one being will tell another is possible, or meaningful. And that is problematic in the ultimate sense I think…


      2. Michael,

        Thank you so much for your thoughtful and heartfelt expressions here. It gives me a large amount of joy (if it’s quantifiable: yes: large) to read your impressions; and, after my brief WP break, I will enjoy visiting your lovely writings on your blog (which there’s much more time to be spent there!) and responding more to what you wrote here as well 🙂

        Thank you so much,

        P.S. I’m going to immediately agree with you about the infinite possibilities for equations, and descriptions… just like poems, songs, etc. Agree very much with this, too: “consciousness does not derive its existence and meaning from the artifacts it has produced.” Right there/here with you on that.

Please drop me a petal and let me know that you visited :)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s