Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
wrong,
and no matter how much
they fight over
it,
the question
cannot
be
decided.
The only
way
the
sophist could
succeed would
be
to kill
off
everyone but himself,
and
that
type of demonstration would
be stupid.
Let us return
to
the question
of Newton's
law' of
gravity.
We take
Newton's
law
of gravity
as
a very serious theory and call
it
a
"complete
theory".
However,
as we have stated above,
this type of
"complete theory"
is opposed
by one
type
of
reasoning which makes
it fail
completely-
This
type of reasoning
is
the
"geometric
points
do
not
exist"
we described
above.
Since
the
"mass points"
do not exist,
therefore this
leads to the
m A
and
m3
in
the
law
of
universal
gravitation
to
be meaningless-
Furthermore,
the
distance
(r)
in
the
formula
becomes
completely
meaningless,
and
the
entire
universal
law
of
gravity
thus
become*
nonsense.
Therefore,
this reasoning
that
"geometric points do not exist!"
is called
"the
theory of
incompleteness".
The term "incompleteness" comes
from
its
meaning which
is
the opposite of
"complete"
or
"incomplete"
(not
strict).
Therefore,
if
there are "complete theories"
there naturally must
be
the
opposite
"theory of
incompleteness".
These two must both exist or
neither exist.
This
is
the
principle of
the "theory
of
incompleteness"
which
he
have
proposed.
It
is
a
principle
which
is
universally
applicable.
Because
of
the
extremes
of
thought,
people
either
stress
the
"complete
theory"
part
and
ignore
the "theory
of
incompleteness"
part
or
stress
the
"theory
of
incompleteness"
part
and
ignore the
"complete
theory
part".
Obviously,
Newton
raised
the
"complete theory"
part
of
the
law
of universal
gravitation
to occupy
the absolute superior
position
and
pushed
the
"theory of
incompleteness"
part
(which
is
that
"geometric
points
do not
exist")
to
an
inferior position.
This
is what
made Newton
famous.
He was good
at
taking advantage
of
this
tendency of
extreme thought.
Actually,
it was
like
this.
Man
long ago accepted many
"complete
theories".
These
theories
became
link
after
link
in
an
"extremely hard chain
of
ideas"
which restricted our thoughts.
Let us now raise two more examples.
(II).
THE FAILURE OF ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS
There
are
no
absolutely
accurate
measurements
in
this
world.
Everyone knows
this.
However,
at
first there
must have
been people who
believed
that
"there are absolutely accurate measurements
in
this world",
other wise why would
we have
refuted
this
statement?
If we
call
this
theory
a
"complete
theory"
(that
is
"that there
are absolutely precise
values
in
this world"),
then
there must be
a
"theory of
incompleteness"
in
opposition
to
it.
This
"theory of
incompleteness"
is "absolute only has
meaning
in
comparison
to
relative".
Therefore,
"absolute"
is also
relative.
Actually,
any
measurement
must
have some error,
this
is
a
reflection
of
the
"theory
of
incompleteness".
Let us raise another example.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
pfl
THftT
„ EVERy MEASURED value
IS objective
1'
(III).
FAILURE OF THE
ID
ry
measured value
that when measuring
len9^at it is
a" objective value-
Everyone knows that wne
objectively ,
that
t «
there
must be
a
sk-vS-
••theory o f
incompleteness
im
an estimate,.a __ lled
-estimates
,
and
r^».- - «-
" lheory of
this
is the opposition
thB
princE.- “Hhe ,;-i£"j
::Sl^rSr
*tn --ST-T’UTiS ^
more examples.
Jt
wo
lQok
at
the result.
nrinciple to its basics
^
the
"theory of
.
is
reduced
to
its
^ immediately appear
If
a
principle
is
r
to
that principle ^
oul
the principle
incompleteness"
in
oPP°^
:L°
theory
of completeness.
Wh
,. theory
of
T*i
9 ?5JZ"Sr - Cr nt raJ
:
-iIs,
Bft
en
n
it
is
.ttuurv^
tncbmplstsnesa"
wbich
ncB
.tan
re
no
''theory
oi ih-mp^ „trat.
completeness
,
and
ss" ,
then we
the "theory
of
comp^
thkt this
is
the case.
.
lole of
"the theory
of
Actually,
this
ity
the man^staiton’of
^0"^
oppos ites
B
in
SS
theoret ic a 1 ^-^^ts'^and'^chnical P^^
tS£ th^V
includes^the^ thought oi
, lUghts, ideas- -ncepts^c-si^
must confer,
^„rld.
Therefor^ it is
e^ ^ ^
that this
o1
knowledge
of
the
k[,pledge of
the worl
principle allows us to
principle exists
tho „or ld w. know see».-ly ^
However ,
ho.
-- *
co„p,eteness''
and
^
to explain
contain
the^^„
that
metaphysical
section -
incompleteness
at the proof
in the
things?
Plea
,TV AND INST
in.
ir E^s oe—
;"T
for every thing
t0
te^den^°^°^ ex tremes°of human^thought^nd
* the
i5 necessary
to discus
reasons for
this-
extremes is becauB^KT
™
reason
human " 0^^ ^^individual'' "P—
L4ppjt©vedHgoiaitel<Ka^2b0oM/1O
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
peopl'
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
is
a
“reality"
that
exists
because
of
the unity of opposites
in
the
conceptual
idea of
real
and unreal.
Therefore,
as
a person,
ones thoughts
very early
ran
to extremes,
and
later thoughts habitually ran
to extremes
and
had
a tendency
to extremes.
It is only
by ideas going
to extremes
that there is stability
in the
thinking
of
problems.
For example,
a person
iB stable about the view of
being
an
"individual"
person
and
of doing what
a person should be doing.
Through
the
application
of
the
"principle
of
the
'theory
of
incompleteness'"
to
this
stability
of
thought we can immediately
learn
that there
is
a
"theory of
incompleteness" which
stands
in
opposition
to
the
"theory
of completeness",
that
is
in opposition
to this "stability of
thought",
which
is
that
thought
is not stable.
Now
let us
look
at something
important,
which is when
"the theory of
completeness"
is
viewed
as
"existing objectively",
then
the "theory of
incompleteness"
is something
conceptual.
For
example,
the "geometric
points"
and
the "estimated"
final units described
in
the previous section.
We should
take note
that "thought
is not
stable"
is
also
a conceptual
idea,
because as explained
before,
it
is
"theory of incompleteness".
That
is
to
say,
any
manifestation
of
"the
theory
of
incompleteness"
is
conceptual,
and
that
it rarely occurs and
it
has poor repeatability.
This
explains
that
when
"the
theory of completeness"
is taken as
"objective reality"
and as
"normal",
then
"the theory
of
incompleteness"
is taken
to be
"conceptual
ideas"
and .as
"abnormal"
phenomena which occur
rarely and have poor repeatability.
IV.
THE MECHANISMS OF THE QIGONG AND HUMAN PARANORMAL ABILITIES
Now
let us apply
"The principle of
'the theory of
incompleteness'"
in
explaining Qigong
and human
paranormal
abilities.
(I).
EXPLAINING "RECOGNIZING CHARACTERS WITH THE EARS"
"Recognizing characters
with the
ears"
is
also called
"recognizing
characters with
the mind"
because
it
cannot only
be done
with the ears,
but also
with
the
nose,
armpits,
etc.
Furthermore,
after
the characters
are written,
if
the paper
is
folded up or
torn
into shreds,
the characters
can
still
be recognized
in
this manner.
Obviously,
this type of character
recognition cannot
be taken
to
be
a
"visual"
ability.
Using
the
principle of
"the theory
of
incompleteness,"
it
is very
easy
to
come up
with an explanation of
this "recognizing characters with
the ears"
,
because
the mechanism of visual character recognition
is
a
type
of
theoretical
concept,
and
if
it
is taken
to be a "complete theory",
then
there must
be
a
"theory of
incompleteness" standing
in opposition
to it
causing
this
"complete theory"
to fail.
Actually this
is just
the case.
There
are
a
number
of
people
who
have
attempted
to
criticize the
B
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
phenomenon
of
"recognizing
characters
with
the
ears"
by
using many
principles
of
Western
medicine
and
physiology
concerning
how people
recognize characters*
feeling
that
thiB can prove that characters cannot
be recognized without using
the eyes.
However*
they are
a
long
way from
being
able
to convince
everyone because to properly explain
the function
of character
recognition
it
is
not
only
necessary
to
explain about
"people",
but
is also
necessary
to explain
the world*
and
for
a complete
explanation
it
is necessary
to use
the concept
of unity
of opposites to
explain
it.
Obviously*
they
are
a
long
way
away
from
a
proper
explanation
When
the
"theory of
incompleteness"
appears
in
opposition
to the
"theory of
completeness",
the
"theory of completeness"
fails.
Then*
if
a
certain character recognition capability
theory taken
to be
"a complete
theory"
fails,
then
other
character
recognition
abilities
appear.
However,
as we have said
before*
this
is tied
in with the
mind*
and since
it
is
a
conceptual
idea*
this
sort
of
mental character recognition
phenomenon should seldom occur
and
have
poor
repeatability.
This
is
exactly as
it
is.
(II)
.
EXPLAINING
"LONG DISTANCE VISION"
"Long
distance
vision"
can
actually
also
be
called mental
long
distance vision.
With normal
abilities*
it
is impossible
to see over
long
distances
such
as
several
thousand
kilometers
or
over
ten thousand
kilometers.
This
is not only because the
distance is
too great
to make
out the objects,
but there also buildings,
trees and mountains
in
the way.
However,
with
the
"mental
long distance
vision" capability
this type of
unimaginable phenomenon actually exists and
has attracted
the attention of
people
in China and other countries.
(III)
.
"MENTALLY REMOVING OBJECTS FROM A SOLID CONTAINER"
Using
the mind
to
remove solid
objects from
a sealed
container
is
what
this
ability refers
to.
However*
why should such
a phenomenon which
is
in violation
of
common
knowledge
occur?
Objects
"passing through
spacial
barriers"
without damaging
the sealed
container or damaging
its
seal
is impossible with normal
abilities.
However,
this type
of
"mental
removal"
can
be
explained
using
the
principle
of
"theory
of
incompleteness"
When
such
theories
such
as
"Newton's
law
of
motion"
and
"impenetrability of
matter"
are
taken
to
be "theories of completeness",
then
there must
be "theories of
incompleteness"
in opposition to
them and
causing
them
to
fail,
and
objects
can
move
in
accordance with
the
principles of
the "theories of incompleteness".
The reason
people
find
this explanation difficult to accept
is mostly
due
to
the restrictions of
the original
"theories of completeness"
such as
"do you mean
to say there are problems with Newton's
laws of motion"?
"Is
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6