- Thread starter Steve
- Start date

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujam

Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan FRS (pronunciation: i/ˈʃriːniˌvɑːsə ˈrɑːmɑːˌnʊdʒən/; 22 December 1887 – 26 April 1920) was an Indian mathematician and autodidact who lived during the British Raj. Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. Ramanujan initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation; it was quickly recognized by Indian mathematicians. When his skills became obvious and known to the wider mathematical community, centred in Europe at the time, he began a partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy. The Cambridge professor realized that Srinivasa Ramanujan had produced new theorems in addition to rediscovering previously known ones.

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations).[1] Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.[2] His original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime and the Ramanujan theta function, have inspired a vast amount of further research.[3] The Ramanujan Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, was established to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by Ramanujan.[4]

Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: '"An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."'[6]

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations).[1] Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.[2] His original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime and the Ramanujan theta function, have inspired a vast amount of further research.[3] The Ramanujan Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, was established to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by Ramanujan.[4]

Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: '"An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."'[6]

S

The Man Who Knew Infinity, Srinivasa Ramanujam - Documentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujam

There's a lot of interesting stuff with "anomalous" attainment of knowledge, especially when discussing mathematics.

There's a lot of interesting stuff with "anomalous" attainment of knowledge, especially when discussing mathematics. *"Is mathematics created or discovered?" *is a question I like to pose to math dept. faculty - the reverence for the math often seems like an expression of awe before the Numinous.

"Perhaps less controversial, but to me equally if not more interesting, are questions like "Was mathematics discovered or invented?" To find some sort of a contemporary answer to this question without turning to Wikipedia, (which I don't trust in the slightest where certain topics are concerned) I listened to an Episode of 'Closer to Truth'. This is a series of television programmes and podcasts in which a well-known thinker called Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Scientists/ Philosophers of all persuasions, asking the 'Big Questions'. Not a very in depth investigation, perhaps, but it provided me with a range of first hand opinions from the cutting edge of mathematics. In this episode he asked mathematicians and physicists what they thought about this question. The general consensus was that Mathematics was 'discovered'. Where can we take such an answer? It's difficult to know."

Thanks. Here's the film dramatisation of Ramanujan:

God only knows what went on it Ramanujan's mind. The film concentrates on partitions because it's one theorem (if not its proof) that anyone can understand, much like Fermat's last theorem (proved by Andrew Wiles) or Goldbach's conjecture that every even whole number >2 is the sum of at least two primes (as yet unproven for*all* even numbers, but so far empirically known to be true for all evens as far as 4x10^18).

One gets the sense that many such bright stars are destined to burn themselves out quickly: a list of scientists/mathematicians is here, composers here, artists here, and poets here. It may be, however, that one forgets the geniuses who lived quite long lives, such as Newton, Handel, Bach, Einstein, Russell, and so on. It may be that early deaths among geniuses are no more common than among ordinary people.

Regarding simulation, it strikes me that the word tends to embody teleology in the sense of some guiding intelligence; much more so than*illusion* or *maya. *I think this is an important distinction. Illusion can be something that is a property of the mind of the human observer, whereas simulation seems to be something governed by someone or something higher than human who is directing events in such a way as to influence human perception: in my view, it's an inherently more dualistic, even religious, idea. Strange then that people like deGrasse Tyson seem give it truck, but probably wouldn't favour the notion of all of apparent reality being illusory, i.e. an inevitable construct of the way human consciousness works.

I myself favour illusion much more than simulation. Try out some of Douglas Harding's experiments to gain at least a little insight into Maya/illusion: into how, contrary to the myth of materialism or dualism, each of us is an unmoved mover who at the centre is quite still/at rest whilst every other apparent thing appears to move, or to change. Every apparent*thing* proceeds from our consciousness and there isn't anything outside and separate from us. It is in this central unmoved mover that we apparently separate beings meet as one observer viewing the apparent world from many apparently separate perspectives. They're only separate perspectives to each ego, which identifies with the ego-body/mind. At times when ego retreats, for whatever reason, we may gain an increasing sense of blissful oneness.

The mesmerising concretude of apparent reality, along with the way we seem not to be responsible for large parts of it, nor for seemingly perceiving the same external "things", such as stars, planets, gas turbines, human bodies, and so on, is what fools us most into projecting reality outside ourselves. I think this notion is not so much wrong, as a misinterpretation that certainly, to some degree, is practically useful for living our lives in an apparent world. The simulation hypothesis is just a little bit more sophisticated a version of this -- a way, with a certain de-emphasis on, (but not total elimination of), the existence of some kind of higher being -- that covertly allows us to to persist (albeit sotto voce), with such a notion.

We ask ourselves questions about such a putative creator/maintainer, such as*why* it created us; what's its purpose in doing so? I don't think we always realise that such questions are predicated on dualistic views of reality; the more or less tacit acceptance that there's *it*, whatever that is, and, separately, *us*. It doesn't matter if we call it God or a simulation, I think these are just variations on the same theme.

Personally, I think if there's a God, it's just the one consciousness, being and doing what it does, which à la Kastrup, means it's "dissociated" into us and all other living creatures. It isn't doing any of it for a particular human-comprehensible reason, or maybe any reason at all: it's simply being what it is, and maybe, in an evolutionary sense, developing itself through what we perceive as time; which latter could be just an impression of the endlessly developing evolutionary potential inherent in its nature.

God only knows what went on it Ramanujan's mind. The film concentrates on partitions because it's one theorem (if not its proof) that anyone can understand, much like Fermat's last theorem (proved by Andrew Wiles) or Goldbach's conjecture that every even whole number >2 is the sum of at least two primes (as yet unproven for

One gets the sense that many such bright stars are destined to burn themselves out quickly: a list of scientists/mathematicians is here, composers here, artists here, and poets here. It may be, however, that one forgets the geniuses who lived quite long lives, such as Newton, Handel, Bach, Einstein, Russell, and so on. It may be that early deaths among geniuses are no more common than among ordinary people.

Regarding simulation, it strikes me that the word tends to embody teleology in the sense of some guiding intelligence; much more so than

I myself favour illusion much more than simulation. Try out some of Douglas Harding's experiments to gain at least a little insight into Maya/illusion: into how, contrary to the myth of materialism or dualism, each of us is an unmoved mover who at the centre is quite still/at rest whilst every other apparent thing appears to move, or to change. Every apparent

The mesmerising concretude of apparent reality, along with the way we seem not to be responsible for large parts of it, nor for seemingly perceiving the same external "things", such as stars, planets, gas turbines, human bodies, and so on, is what fools us most into projecting reality outside ourselves. I think this notion is not so much wrong, as a misinterpretation that certainly, to some degree, is practically useful for living our lives in an apparent world. The simulation hypothesis is just a little bit more sophisticated a version of this -- a way, with a certain de-emphasis on, (but not total elimination of), the existence of some kind of higher being -- that covertly allows us to to persist (albeit sotto voce), with such a notion.

We ask ourselves questions about such a putative creator/maintainer, such as

Personally, I think if there's a God, it's just the one consciousness, being and doing what it does, which à la Kastrup, means it's "dissociated" into us and all other living creatures. It isn't doing any of it for a particular human-comprehensible reason, or maybe any reason at all: it's simply being what it is, and maybe, in an evolutionary sense, developing itself through what we perceive as time; which latter could be just an impression of the endlessly developing evolutionary potential inherent in its nature.

Last edited:

B

IIRC he would have dreams that his family goddess left drops of blood for him to drink, and when he awoke he would have new mathematical understanding.

There's a lot of interesting stuff with "anomalous" attainment of knowledge, especially when discussing mathematics.*"Is mathematics created or discovered?" *is a question I like to pose to math dept. faculty - the reverence for the math often seems like an expression of awe before the Numinous.

There's a lot of interesting stuff with "anomalous" attainment of knowledge, especially when discussing mathematics.

https://www.famousscientists.org/7-great-examples-of-scientific-discoveries-made-in-dreams/

Don't know how accurate it is