OOPS

JEFFREY ("RHUBARB") RUBARD <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> @ 0156 HOURS
ON 3 OCTOBER 2023: "You're giving this garbage up, then?"

DOLF @ 1032 HOURS ON 5 OCTOBER 2023: "After a lifetime of disrespect, we
again advise that our participation with the Jewish Community will now
cease and you may never participate in the fruits of my labours since we
are permanently estranged."

H120@{
  {@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1)},
  {@2: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#6); Ego: 4 - BARRIER: HSIEN (#5)},
  {@3: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#51); Ego: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#45 -
I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1})},
  Male: #51; Feme: #45
} // #45

#2 #9 #4
#7 #5 #3
#6 #1 #8
= #15 / #45 {#ONE: GRECO-ROMAN SQUARE}

[#11, {@1: Sup: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#11); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A
(#11)}
#16, {@2: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#38); Ego: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#27)}
#15, {@3: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#80); Ego: 15 - REACH: TA (#42)}
#56, {@4: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#97); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH:
CHIN (#98 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%24})}
#61, {@5: Sup: 78 - ON THE VERGE: CHIANG (#175 - I AM NOT A TRANSGRESSOR
{%22}); Ego: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH (#159)}
#60, {@6: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#232); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION:
CHI (#219)}
#47, {@7: Sup: 23 - EASE: YI (#255); Ego: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#266)}
#52, {@8: Sup: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#330); Ego: 52 - MEASURE: TU (#318)}
#51] {@9: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#375); Ego: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG
(#369)}

#307 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #375 as [#200, #20, #1, #50, #4, #1, #30,
#1] = skándalon (G4625): {UMBRA: #426 % #41 = #16} 1) the movable stick
or trigger of a trap, a trap stick; 1a) a trap, snare; 1b) any
impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall, (a
stumbling block, occasion of stumbling) i.e. a rock which is a cause of
stumbling; 1c) fig. *APPLIED* *TO* *JESUS* *CHRIST*, *WHOSE* *PERSON*
*AND* *CAREER* *WERE* *SO* *CONTRARY* *TO* *THE* *EXPECTATIONS* *OF*
*THE* *JEWS* *CONCERNING* *THE* *MESSIAH*, that they rejected him and by
their obstinacy made shipwreck of their salvation; 2) *ANY* *PERSON*
*OR* *THING* *BY* *WHICH* *ONE* *IS* (*ENTRAPPED*) *DRAWN* *INTO*
*ERROR* *OR* *SIN*;

#88 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #98 as [#10, #30, #8, #40] = lâcham (H3898):
{UMBRA: #78 % #41 = #37} 1) to fight, do battle, make war; 1a) (Qal) to
fight, do battle; 1b) (Niphal) to engage in battle, wage war; 2) (Qal)
*TO* *EAT*, use as food;

#45 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #45 as [#1, #4, #40] /
#85 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #175 as [#40, #1, #4, #40] /
#605 as [#1, #4, #600] = ʼâdâm (H120): {UMBRA: #45 % #41 = #4} 1) man,
mankind; 1a) man, *HUMAN* *BEING*; 1b) man, mankind (much more
frequently intended sense in OT); 1c) *ADAM*, first man; 1d) city in
Jordan valley;

#38 #45 #40
#43 #41 #39
#42 #37 #44
= #123 / #369 {#FIVE /#CENTRE: GRECO-ROMAN SQUARE / #195 - tsâdaq
(H6663): *TO* *BE* *JUST*, *BE* *RIGHTEOUS* (*IN* *CONDUCT* *AND*
*CHARACTER*)}

H120@{
  {@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1)},
  {@2: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#6); Ego: 4 - BARRIER: HSIEN (#5)},
  {@3: Sup: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#44); Ego: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#38)},
  Male: #44; Feme: #38
} // #605

EDUARD SHYFRIN @ 1228 HOURS ON 2 FEBRUARY 2023: "The expression of these
above-mentioned principles in our reality, namely the family of
“minimal” principles:

1) Fermat Principle
2) Principle of Least Action - PLA
3) Ockham’s Razor
4) Principle of Sufficient Reason - PSR
5) Theories of Algorithmic Complexity
6) Minimum Energy Principle
7) Ground State
8) Minimum Work Principle

II. I will attempt to answer the question, ‘What is the nature of G-d’s
work?’
III. I will consider the connection between the “minimal principles,”
causality and Divine Providence, the essence of Shabbat and the path of
the Torah in the information space.
IV. The influence of Man on the amount of G-d’s work.
V. The information nature of the ‘physical’ laws and their connection
with the punishment of Adam.



<https://x.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1709561508848693532>

In simple language, this PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACT (PLA) is ingeniously
described in the book of Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman “The
Character of Physical Law:”

“When you have a number of particles, and you want to know how one moves
from one place to another, you do it by inventing a possible motion that
gets from one place to the other in a given amount of time. Say the
particle wants to go from X to Y in an hour, and you want to know by
what route it can go. What you do is to invent various curves and
calculate on each curve a certain quantity. (I do not want to tell you
what the quantity is, but for those who have heard of these terms, the
quantity on each route is the average of the difference between the
kinetic and the potential energy.) If you calculate this quantity for
one route, and then for another, you will get a different number for
each route. There is one route which gives the least possible number,
however, and that is the route that the particle in nature actually takes.”

Initially, the PLA was proposed by Pierre Louis Maupertius in 1744 and
elaborated by the great mathematician Leonhard Euler in the same year.
In 1760, Joseph-Louis Lagrange proposed the way of mathematical
description of the mechanical systems known today as Lagrangian.
Lagrangian is known as the difference between the kinetic and potential
energies, and the action is the integral of the Lagrangian over time. It
is important to note that action is a scalar. It doesn’t describe what
happens at a certain moment in time. It is a parameter of the trajectory.

The Principle of Least (stationary) Action is central in modern physics.
It was applied in Thermodynamics, General Theory of Relativity, Quantum
Electro Dynamics (QED), Particle Physics and String Theory.

It is well described in the article “The Principle of Least Action”
(David Dalrymple, Edge): “Nature is lazy. Scientific paradigms and
“ultimate” visions of the universe come and go, but the idea of “least
action” has remained remarkably unperturbed.”"

Max Planck, founder of quantum physics, wrote: “The least-action
principle introduces a completely new idea into the concept of
causality: The efficient cause, which operates from the present into the
future and makes future situations appear as determined by earlier ones,
is joined by the final cause for which, inversely, the future - namely,
a definite goal - serves as the premise from which there can be deduced
the development of the processes which lead to this goal.”

Also, he wrote, “the most adequate formulation of this law creates the
impression in every unbiased mind that nature is ruled by a rational,
purposive will.”

From the point of view of the mathematical description of the physical
systems, PLA and formulations based on the physical laws – for example,
Newton’s second law – give the same result. We again refer to Richard
Feynman’s book. Feynman gives three equal descriptions of gravity - the
famous Newton’s Law of Gravity, the local field method, and the PLA. He
writes:

“This is an example of the wide range of beautiful ways of describing
nature. When people say that nature must have causality, you can use
Newton’s law; or if they say that nature must be stated in terms of a
minimum principle, you talk about it this last way; or if they insist
that nature must have a local field - sure, you can do that. The
question is: which one is right? If these various alternatives are not
exactly equivalent mathematically, if for certain ones there will be
different consequences than for others, then all we have to do is to
experiment to find out which way nature actually chooses to do it.

“But in the particular case I am talking about, the theories are exactly
equivalent. Mathematically, each of the three different formulations,
Newton’s law, the local field method and the minimum principle, give
exactly the same consequences. What do we do then? You will read in all
the books that we cannot decide scientifically on one or the other. That
is true. They are equivalent scientifically. It is impossible to make a
decision because there is no experimental way to distinguish between
them if all the consequences are the same. But psychologically, they are
very different in two ways. First, philosophically you like them or do
not like them; and training is the only way to beat that disease.
Second, psychologically they are different because they are completely
inequivalent when you are trying to guess new laws.”

The principal and most important difference between the description of
the system by PLA or by the physical laws is in causality. The PLA
implies teleology (finality) - an explanation for something which serves
as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal - actually backward
causality.

Formulation by the law implies efficient cause - straightforward causality.

The answer to the question, “Which type of causality actually takes
place in the Creation?” is of utmost importance since it affects our
understanding of G-d’s plan, Divine Providence and freedom of choice.

Both approaches demand certain explanations.

In the case of PLA, the standard question is, “How does the particle
‘know’ which trajectory to choose?”

When the founding father of quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr, visited
Ernest Rutherford in Cambridge and told him that when an electron emits
a photon, it jumps to the lower energy orbit, Rutherford inquired, “How
does an electron know to which orbit to jump?”

Any type of causality is effected through the transfer of energy,
information or momentum.

Since PLA implies backward causality, the mechanism should be explained.
Also, we should ask a question about the connection between PLA and
Divine Providence.

In the case of the “law approach,” there are many unanswered questions.
Where do the laws come from? What is their nature? How can we account
for the mutability of the laws?

In his book “At Home in the Universe,” John A. Wheeler writes:

“No laws. So far as we can see today, the laws of physics cannot have
existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being
at the big bang.”

He also writes: “How can one see the lesson of gravitational collapse -
whether big bang or black hole or big crunch - in a larger framework? No
concept puts itself forward with greater force than ‘mutability.’”

There exists a distinction between the attitude of different schools of
thought towards the problem of causality.

One of the most ardent supporters of teleology (final causes) was
Gottfried Leibnitz with his famous Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR),
which in concise form could be laid out as “nothing happens without a
reason.” Here Leibnitz meant reason of G-d. He writes:

“I grant that particular effects of nature could and should be explained
mechanically.…but the general principles of physics, and even of
mechanics depend on the conduct of a sovereign intelligence and cannot
be explained without taking it into consideration.”

Actually, the essence of the principle is that the Creation is a
“goal-directed activity,” as it was put forward by William of Auvergne,
Bishop of Paris, much earlier than Leibnitz put forward his PSR. Long
before William of Auvergne, Talmudic sages expressed the idea of
backward causality in a very concise form: “What was conceived first was
created last.”

According to Descartes, Divine reasons exist, but are forever hidden
from the human mind. (Yemima Ben-Menahem, “Causation in Science”). She
writes: “According to Descartes, the natural laws are decreed by G-d and
are humanly inexplicable. G-d’s reasons cannot be used for scientific
explanations. The Cartesian school of thought rejected teleology and
accepted the principles of straightforward causality.”

It’s an established tradition in contemporary science to follow the
Cartesian line of thought and to refute teleology, which is not
surprising, taking into account the principle which says that “G-d is
not a business of science, and He cannot be measured or computed.”

The “law approach” has a number of weak points. Scientists can observe
the pattern, express it in mathematical form and call it a law but
science cannot explain the law. Isaac Newton admitted that he had no
explanation for the Law of Universal Gravitation. He also admitted the
problem of initial conditions which are not known to science. As John A
Wheeler put it (“At home in the Universe” ):

“Never has physics come up with a way to tell with what initial
conditions the Universe was started.”

The problem of initial conditions has a general character. In his
seminal work “From Strange Simplicity to Complex Familiarity,” Nobel
prize winner Manfred Eigen writes: “Darwin excluded any application of
his theory to the origin of life, insisting that it dealt exclusively
‘with the manner of succession.’ Darwin derived his principle from
observations in nature. Only once, many years later, did he think of a
more general theoretical foundation. In a letter written in 1882 (during
the last month of his life) to the zoologist and surgeon George C.
Wallich, Darwin confirmed that his work was concerned only with the
manner of succession, and he ‘left the question of the origin of life
uncanvassed as being altogether in the present state of our knowledge.’”
<https://www.jpost.com/kabbalah/article-730015>

To purchase Eduard Shyfrin’s book ‘From Infinity to Man: The Fundamental
Ideas of Kabbalah Within the Framework of Information Theory and Quantum
Physics’ please click here.

A revision of this document may be obtained from the following URL:

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Hebrew%20Thesis%20of%20Nihilism.pdf>

Last Revision: 5 October 2023

On 3/10/2023 01:56, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:28:34 PM UTC-7, dolf wrote:
>> We've now completed a rudimentary means to convey the Neural Linguistic
>> Pragma which has a temporal resonance to the noumenon for any given day
>> of year / time of day;
>
> "You're giving this garbage up, then?"

--
Check out our SAVVY module prototype that facilitates a movable /
resizable DIALOG and complex dropdown MENU interface deploying the third
party d3 library.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?heuristic>

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/Savvy.zip> (Download resources)