Roger Penrose
English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher
The numbers
3 + 0 = 3
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 3 — The Communicator
Three is the number of expression — the point at which a thing becomes shareable. Tradition links it to language, humour, performance and the ability to make an idea land. It is generally read as the most immediately likeable number, and the reading usually adds a warning in the same breath: fluency can outrun substance, and 3 is described as capable of talking its way past work it has not actually done.
Repeated numbers
3 appears 3 times
Concentrated expression. Read as a voice that arrives before the edit does.
What is missing
Missing 2
Read as bluntness: reaching the conclusion without the intermediate handling. The tradition frames this as a timing gap rather than a lack of feeling.
Missing 4
Read as impatience with structure and maintenance. Associated with starting well and leaving the scaffolding to someone else.
Missing 5
The centre of the grid, so its absence is weighted heavily. Read as difficulty adapting mid-course — a preference for the plan already chosen over the plan now indicated.
Missing 6
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Missing 7
Read as reluctance to sit with an unresolved question. Associated with wanting the working answer rather than the true one.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 8 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 3 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Shani
Saturn. Labour, delay, consequence. Feared in popular practice more than any other, and read as the graha that makes people earn things.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
There are two other words I do not understand — awareness and intelligence. Well, why am I talking about things when I do not know what they really mean? It is probably because I am a mathematician and mathematicians do not mind so much about that sort of thing. They do not need precise definitions of the things they are talking about, provided they can say something about the connections between them.
Understanding is, after all, what science is all about — and science is a great deal more than mindless computation.
Moreover, the complete details of the complication of the structure of Mandelbrot's set cannot really be fully comprehended by anyone of us, nor can it be fully revealed by any computer. It would seem that this structure is not just part of our minds, but it has a reality of its own. ... The computer is being used in essentially the same way that the experimental physicist uses a piece of experimental apparatus to explore the structure of the physical world. The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind: it was a discovery. Like Mount Everest, the Mandelbrot set is just there!
I have been arguing that such 'God-given' mathematical ideas should have some kind of timeless existence, independent of our earthly selves.
Gödel's theorem shows that this point of view is not really a tenable one in a fundamental philosophy of mathematics. The notion of mathematical truth goes beyond the whole concept of formalism. There is something absolute and 'God-given' about mathematical truth. This is what , as discussed at the end of the last chapter, is about. Any particular formal system has a provisional and 'man-made' quality about it. Such systems indeed have very valuable roles to play in mathematical discussions, but they can supply only a partial (or approximate) guide to truth. Real mathematical truth goes beyond mere man-made constructions.
It seems to me that we must make a distinction between what is "objective" and what is "measurable" in discussing the question of physical reality, according to quantum mechanics. The state-vector of a system is, indeed, not measurable, in the sense that one cannot ascertain, by experiments performed on the system, precisely (up to proportionality) what the state is; but the state-vector does seem to be (again up to proportionality) a completely objective property of the system, being completely characterized by the results it must give to experiments that one might perform.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.