Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from March, 2011

Is Reality Just Number? (3)

One issue that needs to be clarified here is the relationship as between number and other mathematical symbols.  On the one hand it would be valid to maintain that the fundamental nature of reality (as phenomenally revealed) is mathematical. However I would also contend that it is more precisely related to number. Basically I would maintain that number in fact implicitly requires other key mathematical symbols and relationships. For example I have frequently identified 1 with the (straight) line and 0 with the circle.  So there are intimate links here as between key numerical and geometrical notions.  Also the important operations of addition and subtraction are again implied by the most basic of numbers (1 and 0).  The very recognition of form in any context implies 1. So for example if one distinctly recognises an object this implies the corresponding inherent recognition of 1. So without such recognition one would not be even able to differentiate objects in experience.  However e

Is Reality Just Number? (2)

In the last contribution I suggested that - what we know as - reality at its most fundamental level represents a simple binary digital number system operating interactively in both an analytical (linear) and holistic (circular) manner.  The importance of this digital system in analytical terms is well recognised in IT technology where it has the capacity to successfully encode all information.  The corresponding importance of this same system in holistic terms - though not as yet recognised - is that it has the capacity to successfully encode all transformation systems i.e. as the dynamic interaction of both linear and circular logic.  However the most startling revelation comes from the incorporation of both systems whereby reality itself in all its diverse and complex intricacies (both physical and psychological) thereby represents both the encoding and decoding of the combined two systems.  So one way of looking at the nature of reality is as a dynamic computer programme that operat

Is Reality Just Number?

It should be apparent in the first instance that number is essential in quantitative terms. The very notion of quantity implies some form of numerical ordering! What is not however so obvious is the realisation that number is equally essential from a qualitative perspective where it plays a holistic role complementary to what is accepted in conventional (quantitative) terms. To appreciate this important point we can initially confine ourselves to the two most fundamental numbers 1 and 0. As we know these two digits can be used - as in modern computers - to successfully encode all information (in quantitative terms). However what is not commonly appreciated is that the same two digits can be potentially used to encode all transformation processes when used with respect to their holistic qualitative meaning. So, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 in this context relates to the linear use of logic in the analysis of form and 0 to its corresponding circular use (as an indirect expression of t

Parallel Wonders

Following on my last contribution it would be instructive to demonstrate futher important points regarding the "true" nature of physical reality (through corresponding reference with the complementary psychological connection) . In physical terms we have (partial) physical objects that dynamically exist through interaction with a (holistic) dimensional framework of space and time. In corresponding psychological terms we have (specific) perceptions that dynamically interact with (universal) conceptual classes. So for example a specific electron perception necessarily interacts with the universal conceptual class of electron. In other words an electron as quantitatively perceived thereby must relate to the qualitative concept of "electron". The psychological dimensional framework of each electron in space and time is provided through its conceptual appreciation. However as we can have many different types of object perceptions, likewise we can have many correspon

The Wonders of the Universe

It seems that the BBC has now found their answer to Stephen Hawking through their own series “The Wonders of the Universe” hosted by Professor Brian Cox. Now Brian Cox, a former member of the 90’s pop band D-ream is something of a wonder himself as he looks far too young to be a professor. However there is no doubting his communication skills and his undoubted knowledge and love for his subject. Indeed I found his programme demonstrating how elements here on Earth have emerged from the high temperature processes within stars compelling viewing as it clearly showed how we are all truly children of the Universe (and indeed of the original Big Bang which is believed to have started it all)! The following programme "Falling" on gravity proved of equal interest as he showed how this mysterious force is responsible for the structure of all phenomenal forms in the Universe. Initially he confined himself - which accepting that it was not fully satisfactory - to Newton’s concepti