#coordinate systems

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - VI

(continued from here)

“O Oysters, come and walk with us!” The Walrus did beseech. “A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, Along the briny beach: We cannot do with more than four, To give a hand to each.”

* * *

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax– Of cabbages–and kings– And why the sea is boiling hot– And whether pigs have wings.”

-Lewis Carroll, The Walrus and the Carpenter

In this segment, probable numbers will be shown to grow out of a natural context inherently rather than through geometric second thought as transpired  in the history of Western thought  with imaginary numbers and complex plane.  To continue  with development of probable numbers it will be necessary to leave behind,  for the time being,  all preoccupation with imaginary numbers and complex plane.  It will also be necessary  to depart from our comfort zone of Cartesian spatial coordinate axioms and orientation.

Probable coordinates do not negate validity of Cartesian coordinates but they do relegate them to the status of a special case.  In the probable coordinate system the three-dimensional coordinate system of Descartes maps only one eighth of the totality. This means then, that the Cartesian two-dimensional coordinate plane furnishes just one quarter of the total number of  corresponding probable coordinate mappings  projected to a two-dimensional space.^[1]  It suggests also that  Cartesian localization  in 2-space or 3-space is just a small part of the whole story regarding actual spatial and temporal locality and their accompanying physical capacities, say for instance of momentum or mass, but actually encompassing a host of other competencies as well.

Although this might seem strange it is a good thing. Why is it a good thing?  First, because nature, as a self-sustaining reality, cannot favor any one coordinate scheme but must encompass all possible - if it is to realize any.  Second,  because both the Schrödinger equationandFeynman path integral approaches to quantum mechanics say it is so.^[2]  Third,  because Hilbert space demands it.  This may leave us disoriented and bewildered, but nature revels in this plan of probable planes. Who are we to argue?

So how do we accomplish this feat? Well, basically by reflections in all dimensions and directions. We extend the Cartesian vectors every way possible.  That would give us  a 3 x 3 grid or lattice  of coordinate systems (the original Cartesian system  and  eight new grid elements surrounding it),  but there are only four different types,  so we require only four of the nine to demonstrate. It is best not to show all nine in any case because to do so  would place our Cartesian system at direct center of this geometric probable universe and that would be misleading. Why? Because when we tile the two-dimensional universe to infinity in all directions,  there is no central coordinate system. Any one of the four could be considered at the center, so none actually is. Overall orientation is nondiscriminative.^[3]

LOOKING GLASS CARTESIAN COORDINATE QUARTET

The image seen immediately above shows four  Looking House Cartesian coordinate systems, correlated within a mandalic plane. This mandalic plane is  one of six faces of a mandalic cube,  each of which  is constructed to a different plan but composed of similar building blocks, the four bigrams in various positions and orientations. A 2-dimensional geometric universe can be tiled with this image,  recursively repeating it in all directions throughout the two dimensions.^[4] It should not be very difficult for the reader to determine which of the four mandalic moieties references our particular conventional Cartesian geometric universe.^[5]

It remains only to be added here and now that potential dimensions, probable planes,  and  probable numbers  arise  immediately and directly from the remarks above. In some ways it’s a little like valence in chemical reactions.  We’ll likely take a look at that combinatory dynamic in context of mandalic geometry at some time down the road.  Next though we want to see how the addition of composite dimension impacts and modifies the basic geometry of the probable plane discussed here.^[6]

(to be continued)

Top image: The four quadrants of the Cartesian plane.  These are numbered in the counterclockwise direction by convention. Architectonically, two number lines are placed together, one going left-right and the other going up-down to provide context for the two-dimensional plane.  This image has been modified from one found here.

Notes

[1] To clarify further:  There are eight possible Cartesian-like orientation variants in mandalic space arranged around a single point at which they are all tangent to one another. If we consider just the planar aspects of mandalic space,  there are  four possible Cartesian-like orientation variants  which are organized about a central shared point in a manner similar to how quadrants are symmetrically arranged  about the Cartesian origin point (0,0) in ordinary 2D space. But here the center point determining symmetries is always one of the points showing greatest rather than least differentiation. That is to say it is formed by Cartesian vertices, ordered pairs having all 1s, no zeros.  That may have confused more than clarified, but it seemed important to say.  We will be expanding on these thoughts in posts to come. Don’t despair. For just now the important takeaway is that the mandalic coordinate system combines two very important elements that optimize it for quantum application:  it manages to be both probabilistic and convention-free  (in terms of spatial orientation,  which surely must relate to quantum states and numbers in some as yet undetermined manner.) At the same time, imaginary numbers and complex plane are neither.

[2] Even if physics doesn’t yet (circa 2016) realize this to be true.

[3] It is an easy enough matter to extrapolate this mentally to encompass the Cartesian three-dimensional coordinate system but somewhat difficult to demonstrate in two dimensions.  So we’ll persevere with a two-dimensional exposition for the time being. It only needs to be clarified here that the three-dimensional realization involves a 3 x 3 x 3 grid but requires just eight cubes to demonstrate because there are only eight different coordinate system types.

[4] I am speaking here in terms of ordinary dimensions but it should be understood that the reality is that the mandalic plane is a composite 4D/2D geometric structure, and the mandalic cube is a composite 6D/3D structure. The image seen here does not fully clarify that because it does not yet take into account composite dimension nor place the bigrams in holistic context within tetragrams and hexagrams.  All that is still to come.  Greater context will make clear how composite dimension works and why it makes eminent good sense for a self-organizing universe to invoke it. Hint: it has to do with quantum interference phenomena and is what makes all process possible.

ADDENDUM (12 APRIL, 2016)
The mandalic plane I am referring to here corresponds to the Cartesian 2-dimensional plane and is based on four extraordinary dimensions that are composited to the ordinary two dimensions, hence hybrid 4D/2D. It should be understood though that any number of extra dimensions could potentially be composited to two or three ordinary dimensions. The probable plane described in this post is not such a mandalic plane as no compositing of dimensions has yet been performed. What is illustrated here is an ordinary 2-dimensional plane that has undergone reflections in x- and y-dimensions of first and second order to form a noncomposited probable plane. The distinction is an important one.

[5] This is perhaps a good place to mention that the six  planar faces  of the mandalic cube fit together seamlessly in 3-space,  all mediated by the common shared central point, in Cartesian terms the origin at ordered triad (0.0.0) where eight hexagrams coexist in mandalic space. Moreover the six planes fit together mutually by means of a nuclear particle-and-force equivalent of the mortise and tenon joint but in six dimensions rather than two or three, and both positive and negative directions for each.

[6] It should also be avowed that tessellation of a geometric universe with a nondiscriminative, convention-free coordinate system need not exclude use of Cartesian coordinates entirely in all contextual usages.  Where useful they can still be applied in combination with mandalic coordinates since the two can be made commensurate,  irrespective of  specific Cartesian coordinate orientation locally operative. Whatever the Cartesian orientation might be it can always be overlaid with our conventional version of the same. More concretely, hexagram Lines can be annotated with an ordinal numerical subscript specifying Cartesian location in terms of our  local convention  should it prove necessary or desirable to do so for whatever reason.

On the other hand,  before prematurely throwing out the baby with the bath water, we might do well to ask ourselves whether these strange juxtapositions of coordinates might not in fact encode the long sought-after hidden variables that could transform quantum mechanics into a complete theory.  In mandalic coordinates of the reflexive nature described, these so-called hidden variables could be hiding in plain sight.  Were that to prove the case,  David Bohm andLouis de Broglie  would be  immediately and hugely vindicated  in advancing their  pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics.  We could finally consign the Copenhagen Interpretation to the scrapheap where it belongs,  along with both imaginary numbers and the complex plane.

ADDENDUM (24 APRIL, 2016)
Since writing this I’ve learned that de Broglie disavowed Bohm’s pilot wave theory upon learning of it in 1952. Bohm had derived his interpretation of QM from de Broglie’s original interpretation but de Broglie himself subsequently converted to Niels Bohr’s prevailing Copenhagen interpretation.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 311-

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - IV

(continued from here)

One of the notable things the Rationalists  failed to take into account in their analysis and codification of square roots  was  the significance of context. In so doing they assured that all related concepts they developed would eventually degenerate into a series of errors of conflation.  Do  not ever underestimate the importance of context.

Mathematicians, for example, can show that for any 3-dimensional cube  there exists  a  2-dimensional square,  the area of which equals the volume of the cube.^[1] And although that is true, something has been lost in translation. This is another of the sleights of hand mathematicians are so fond of.  Physicists cannot afford to participate in such parlor tricks as these, however mathematically true they might be.^[2]

We will begin now, then, to examine how the mandalic coordinate approach stacks up against that of imaginary numbers and quaternions. The former are holistic and respective of the natural order; the latter are irresponsibly rational, simplistic and, in final analysis, wrong about how nature works.^[3] Ambitious endeavor indeed, but let’s give it a go.

We’ve already looked at how the standard geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in context of the complex plane is based on rotations through continuous Euclidean space.  You can brush up on that aspect of the story here if necessary. The mandalic approach to mapping of space is more complicated and far more interesting.  It involves multidimensional placement of elements in a discrete space, which is to say a discontinuous space,  but one fully commensurate with both Euclidean and Cartesian 3-dimensional space. The holo-interactive manner in which these elements relate to one another leads to a  probabilistic mathematical design  which preserves commutative multiplication,  unlike quaternions which forsake it.

Transformations between these elements are based on inversion (reflection through a point) rather than rotation which cannot in any case reasonably apply to discrete spaces.  The spaces that quantum mechanics inhabits are decidedly discrete.  They cannot be accurately detailed using imaginary and complex numbers or quaternions.  To discern the various, myriad transitions which can occur among mandalic coordinates requires some patience. I think it cannot be accomplished overnight but at least in the post next up we can make a start.^[4]

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] If only in terms of scalar magnitude. Lost in translation are all the details relating to vectors and dimensions in the original.  Conflation does not itself in every case involve what might be termed ‘error’ but because it always involves loss or distortion of information,  it is nearly always guaranteed to eventuate in error somewhere down the line of argument. The point of all this in our context here is that, in the history of mathematics, something of this sort occurred when the Rationalists of the Enlightenment invented imaginary and complex numbers and again when quaternions were invented in 1843. These involved a disruption of vectors and dimensions as treated by nature. The loss of information involved goes a long way in explaining why no one has been able to explain whyandhow quantum mechanics works in a century or more.  These  misconstrued theses  of mathematics behave like a demon or ghost in the machine that misdirects,  albeit unintentionally, all related thought processes.  What we end up with is a plethora of confusion. The fault is not in quantum mechanics but in ourselves, that we are such unrelentingly rational creatures, that so persistently pursue an unsound path that leads to reiterative error.

[2] Because physicists actually care about the real world; mathematicians, not so much.

[3] It must be admitted though that it was not the mathematicians who ever claimed imaginary numbers had anything to do with nature and the real world. Why would they? Reality is not their concern or interest. No, it was physicists themselves who made the mistake. The lesson to be learned by physicists here I expect is to be careful whose petticoat they latch onto. Not all are fabricated substantially enough to sustain their thoughts about reality, though deceptively appearing to do just that for protracted periods of time.

[4] My apologies for not continuing with this here as originally intended. To do so would make this post too long and complicated. Not that transformations among mandalic coordinates are difficult to understand,  just that they are very convoluted. This is not a one-point-encodes-one-resident-number plan like that of Descartes we’re talking about here. This is mandala country.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 309-

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - III

(continued from here)

My objection to the imaginary dimension is not that we cannot see it.  Our senses cannot identify probable dimensions either, at least not in the visually compelling manner they can the three Cartesian dimensions. The question here is not whether imaginary numbers are mathematically true. How could they not be? The cards were stacked in their favor. They were defined in such a manner, – consistently and based on axioms long accepted valid, – that they are necessarily mathematically true. There’s a word for that sort of thing. –The word is  tautological.– No,  the decisive question is whether imaginary numbers apply to the real world; whether they are scientifically true, and whether physicists can truly rely on them to give empirically verifiable results with maps that accurately reproduce mechanisms actually used in nature.^[1]

The geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers was established as a belief system using the Cartesian line extending from  -1,0,0  through the origin  0,0,0 to 1,0,0  as the sole real axis left standing in the complex plane. In 1843,  William Rowan Hamilton introduced two additional axes in a quaternion coordinate system.  The new jandk axes,  similar to the i axis, encode coordinates of imaginary dimensions.  So the complex plane has one real axis, one imaginary; the quaternion system, three imaginary axes, one real, to accomplish which though involved loss of commutative multiplication. The mandalic coordinate system has three real axes upon which are superimposed six probable axes. It is both fully commensurate with the Cartesian system of real numbers  and  fully commutative for all operations throughout all dimensions as well.^[2]

All of these coordinate systems have a central origin point which all other points use as a locus of reference to allow clarity and consistency in determination of location.  The  mandalic coordinate system  is unique in that this point of origin is not a  null point of emptiness as in all the other locative systems,  but  a point of effulgence.  In that location  where occur Descartes’ triple zero triad (0.0.0) and the complex plane’s real zero plus imaginary zero (ax=0,bi=0), we find eight related hexagrams, all having neutral charge density,  each of these consisting of  inverse trigrams  with corresponding Lines of opposite charge, canceling one another out. These eight hexagrams are the only hexagrams out of sixty-four total possessing both of these characteristics.^[3]

So let’s begin now to plot the points of the mandalic coordinate system with  the view  of comparing its  dimensions and points  with  those of the complex plane.^[4]  The eight  centrally located hexagrams  all refer to  and are commensurate with the Cartesian triad (0,0,0). In a sense they can be considered eight  alternative possible states  which can  exist in this locale at different times. These are hybrid forms of the four complementary pair of hexagrams found at antipodal vertices of the mandalic cube.  The eight vertex hexagrams are those with upper and lower trigrams identical. This can occur nowhere else in the mandalic cube because there are only eight trigrams.^[5]

From the origin multiple probability waves of dimension radiate out toward the  central points of the faces of the cube,  where these divergent force fields rendezvous and interact with reciprocal forces returning from the eight vertices at the periphery. converging toward the origin.  Each of these points at the six face centers  are  common intersections  of another eight particulate states or force fields analogous to the origin point except that four originate within this basic mandalic module and four without in an adjacent tangential module. Each of the six face centers then is host to four internal resident hexagrams which  share the point in some manner, time-sharing or other. The end result is the same regardless, probabilistic expression of  characteristic form and function.  There is a possibility that this distribution of points and vectors  could be or give rise to a geometric interpretation of the Schrödinger equation,  the fundamental equation of physics for describing quantum mechanical behavior. Okay, that’s clearly a wild claim, but in the event you were dozing off you should now be fully awake and paying attention.

The vectors connecting centers of opposite faces of an ordinary cube through the cube center or origin of the Cartesian coordinate system are at 180° to each other forming the three axes of the system corresponding to the number of dimensions.  The mandalic cube has 24 such axes, eight of which accompany each Cartesian axis thereby shaping a hybrid 6D/3D coordinate system. Each face center then hosts internally four hexagrams formed by  hybridization of trigrams  in  opposite vertices  of diagonals of that cube face,  taking one trigram  (upper or lower)  from one vertex and the other trigram (lower or upper) from the other vertex. This means that a face of the mandalic cube has eight diagonals, all intersecting at the face center, whereas a face of the ordinary cube has only two.^[6]

The circle in the center of this figure is intended to indicate that the two pairs of antipodal hexagrams at this central point of the cube face rotate through 90° four times consecutively to complete a 360° revolution. But I am describing the situation here in terms of revolution only to show an analogy to imaginary numbers.  The actual mechanisms involved can be better characterized as inversions (reflections through a point),  and the bottom line here is that for each diagonal of a square, the corresponding mandalic square has  a possibility of 4 diagonals;  for each diagonal of a cube,  the corresponding mandalic cube has a possibility of 8 diagonals. For computer science, such a multiplicity of possibilities offers a greater number of logic gates in the same computing space and the prospect of achieving quantum computing sooner than would be otherwise likely.^[7]

Similarly, the twelve edge centers of the ordinary cube host a single Cartesian point,  but the superposed mandalic cube hosts two hexagrams at the same point. These two hexagrams are always inverse hybrids of the two vertex hexagrams of the particular edge.  For example,  the edge with vertices  WIND over WIND  and  HEAVEN over HEAVEN  has as the two hybrid hexagrams  at the  center point  of the edge  WIND over HEAVEN  and HEAVEN over WIND. Since the two vertices of concern here connect with one another  via  the horizontal x-dimension,  the two hybrids  differ from the parents and one another only in Lines 1 and 4 which correspond to this dimension.  The other four Lines encode the y- amd z-dimensions, therefore remain unchanged during all transformations undergone in the case illustrated here.^[8]

This post began as a description of the structure of the mandalic coordinate system and how it differs from those of the complex plane and quaternions.  In the composition,  it became also  a passable introduction to the method of  composite dimension.  Additional references to the way composite dimension works  can be found scattered throughout this blog and Hexagramium Organum.  Basically the resulting construction can be thought of as a  tensegrity structure,  the integrity of which is maintained by opposing forces in equilibrium throughout, which operate continually and never fail,  a feat only nature is capable of.  We are though permitted to map the process  if we can manage to get past our obsession with  and addiction to the imaginary and complex numbers and quaternions.^[9]

In our next session we’ll flesh out probable dimension a bit more with some illustrative examples. And possibly try putting some lipstick on that PIG (Presumably Imaginary Garbage) to see if it helps any.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] For more on this theme,  regarding quaternions,  see Footnote [1]  here. My own view is that imaginary numbers, complex plane and quaternions are artificial devices, invented by rational man, and not found in nature.  Though having limited practical use in  representation of rotations  in  ordinary space they have no legitimate application to quantum spaces,  nor do they have any substantive or requisite relation to square root, beyond their fortuitous origin in the Rationalists’ dissection and codification of square root historically, but that part of the saga was thoroughly misguided.   We wuz bamboozled.  Why persist in this folly? Look carefully without preconception and you’ll see this emperor’s finery is wanting. It is not imperative to use imaginary numbers to represent rotation in a plane. There are other, better ways to achieve the same. One would be to use sin and cos functions of trigonometry which periodically repeat every 360°.  (Read more about trigonometric functions here.)  Another approach would be to use polar coordinates.

[SOURCE]

A quaternion, on the other hand,  is a four-element vector composed of a single real element and three complex elements. It can be used to encode any rotation in a  3D coordinate system.  There are other ways to accomplish the same, but the quaternion approach offers some advantages over these.  For our purposes here what needs to be understood is that mandalic coordinates encode a hybrid 6D/3D discretized space. Quaternions are applicable only to continuous three-dimensional space.  Ultimately,  the two reside in different worlds and can’t be validly compared. The important point here is that each has its own appropriate domain of judicious application. Quaternions can be usefully and appropriately applied to rotations in ordinary three-dimensional space, but not to locations or changes of location in quantum space.  For description of such discrete spaces, mandalic coordinates are more appropriate, and their mechanism of action isn’t rotation but inversion (reflection through a point.) Only we’re not speaking here about inversion in Euclidean space, which is continuous, but in discrete space, a kind of quasi-Boolean space,  a higher-dimensional digital space  (grid or lattice space). In the case of an electron this would involve an instantaneous jump from one electron orbital to another.

[2] I think another laudatory feature of mandalic coordinates is the fact that they are based on a thought system that originated in human prehistory, the logic of the primal I Ching. The earliest strata of this monumental work are actually a compendium of combinatorics and a treatise on transformations,  unrivaled until modern times, one of the greatest intellectual achievements of humankind of any Age.  Yet its true significance is overlooked by most scholars, sinologists among them.  One of the very few intellectuals in the West who knew its true worth and spoke openly to the fact, likely at no small risk to his professional standing, was Carl Jung, the great 20th century psychologist and philosopher.

It is of relevance to note here that all the coordinate systems mentioned are, significantly,  belief systems of a sort.  The mandalic coordinate system  goes beyond the others though,  in that it is based on a still more extensive thought system, as the primal I Ching encompasses an entire cultural worldview.  The question of which,  if any,  of these coordinate systems actually applies to the natural order is one for science, particularly physics and chemistry, to resolve.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that neither the complex plane nor quaternions refer to any dimensions beyond the ordinary three, at least not in the manner of their current common usage.  They are simply alternative ways of viewing and manipulating the two- and three-dimensions described by Euclid and Descartes. In this sense they are little different from  polar coordinatesortrigonometry  in what they are attempting to depict.  Yes, quaternions apply to three dimensions, while polar coordinates and trigonometry deal with only two.  But then there is the method of  Euler angles  which describes orientation of a rigid body in three dimensions and can substitute for quaternions in practical applications.

A mandalic coordinate system, on the other hand, uniquely introduces entirely new features in its composite potential dimensions and probable numbers which I think have not been encountered heretofore. These innovations do in fact bring with them  true extra dimensions beyond the customary three  and also the novel concept of dimensional amplitudes.  Of additional importance is the fact that the mandalic method relates not to rotation of rigid bodies,  but to interchangeability and holomalleability of parts  by means of inversions through all the dimensions encompassed, a feature likely to make it useful for explorations and descriptions of particle interactions of quantum mechanics.  Because the six extra dimensions of mandalic geometry may, in some manner, relate to the six extra dimensions of the 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, mandalic geometry might equally be of value in string theoryandsuperstring theory.

Itis possible to use mandalic coordinates to describe rotations of rigid bodies in three dimensions,  certainly,  as inversions can mimic rotations, but this is not their most appropriate usage. It is overkill of a sort. They are capable of so much more and this particular use is a degenerate one in the larger scheme of things.

[3] This can be likened to a quark/gluon soup.  It is a unique and very special state of affairs that occurs here. Physicists take note. Don’t let any small-minded pure mathematicians  dissuade you from the truth.  They will likely write all this off as “sacred geometry.” Which it is, of course, but also much more.  Hexagram superpositions  and  stepwise dimensional transitions  of the mandalic coordinate system could hold critical clues  to  quantum entanglement and quantum gravity. My apologies to those mathematicians able to see beyond the tip of their noses. I was not at all referring to you here.

[4] Hopefully also with dimensions and points of the quaternion coordinate system once I understand the concepts involved better than I do currently. It should meanwhile be underscored that full comprehension of quaternions is not required to be able to identify some of their more glaring inadequacies.

[5] In speaking of  "existing at the same locale at different times"  I need to remind the reader and myself as well that we are talking here about  particles or other subatomic entities that are moving at or near the speed of light,- - -so very fast indeed. If we possessed an instrument that allowed us direct observation of these events,  our biologic visual equipment  would not permit us to distinguish the various changes taking place. Remember that thirty frames a second of film produces  the illusion of motion.  Now consider what  thirty thousand frames  a second  of  repetitive action  would do.  I think it would produce  the illusion of continuity or standing still with no changes apparent to our antediluvian senses.

[6] Each antipodal pair has four different possible ways of traversing the face center.  Similarly,  the mandalic cube has  thirty-two diagonals  because there are eight alternative paths by which an antipodal pair might traverse the cube center. This just begins to hint at the tremendous number of  transformational paths  the mandalic cube is able to represent, and it also explains why I refer to dimensions involved as  potentialorprobable dimensions  and planes so formed as probable planes.  All of this is related to quantum field theory (QFT), but that is a topic of considerable complexity which we will reserve for another day.

[7] One advantageous way of looking at this is to see that the probabilistic nature of the mandalic coordinate system in a sense exchanges bits for qubits and super-qubits through creation of different levels of logic gates that I have referred to elsewhere as different amplitudes of dimension.

[8] Recall that the Lines of a hexagram are numbered 1 to 6, bottom to top. Lines 1 and 4 correspond to, and together encode, the Cartesian x-dimension. When both are yang (+),  application of the method of  composite dimension results in the Cartesian value  +1;  when both yin (-),  the Cartesian value  -1. When either Line 1 or Line 4 is yang (+) but not both (Boole’s exclusive OR) the result is one of two possible  zero formations  by destructive interference. Both of these correspond to (and either encodes) the single Cartesian zero (0). Similarly hexagram Lines 2 and 5 correspond to and encode the Cartesian y-dimension; Lines 3 ane 6, the Cartesian z-dimension. This outline includes all 9 dimensions of the hybrid  6D/3D coordinate system:  3 real dimensions and the 6 corresponding probable dimensions. No imaginary dimensions are used; no complex plane; no quaternions. And no rotations. This coordinate system is based entirely on inversion (reflection through a point)  and on constructive or destructive interference. Those are the two principal mechanisms of composite dimension.

[9] The process as mapped here is an ideal one.  In the real world errors do occur from time to time. Such errors are an essential and necessary aspect of evolutionary process. Without error, no change. And by implication, likely no continuity for long either, due to external damaging and incapacitating factors that a natural world devoid of error never learned to overcome.  Errors are the stepping stones of evolution, of both biological and physical varieties.

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - II

(continued from here)

When a geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers was at last proposed,  long after they were invented,  it was as though accomplished by central committee. The upshot was easily enough understood but also simplistic. In broad brushstroke here is what seems to have gone down.

The 3 dimensions of Descartes’ coordinate system-a number already deficient from the perspective of mandalic geometry-were reduced to just one.  Of the real number axes then  only the x-axis remained.  This meant from the get-go  that  any  geometric figure that ensued  could encompass only linearity in terms of real numbers and dimensions.  It was applicable only to a line segment,  so the complex plane that resulted  could describe just one real dimension and one imaginary dimension.  It consecrated the number line in a single dimension, to exclusion of its proper habitation in two others besides. Strike one for imaginary numbers.^[1]

With that as background let’s look now at the rotations described by this geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in the context of the complex plane.

i in the complex or cartesian plane. Real numbers lie on the horizontal axis, and imaginary numbers lie on the vertical axis By Loadmaster (David R. Tribble) (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

The number 1 is the multiplicative identity element for real numbers and the number -1  is the  reflection inversion element  for real numbers.  Put another way, the number one times any number equals that number;  the number -1 times any number is  a negative of that number  or  the inverse number through a reference point, usually taken as zero. Multiplying by 1 then leaves 1, -1, i and -i all unchanged. Multiplying by -1  changes  -1 to 1, 1 to -1, i to -i, and -i to i.  In terms of rotations in the complex plane, these changes  all involve a rotation through 180 degrees.  Multiplication of the number 1 by i changes it to i; i by i changes it to -1; -1 by i to -i; and -i by i to 1.  These changes all involve rotations through 90 degrees.  And finally, multiplication of 1 by -i changes it to -i; -i by -i changes it to -1; -1 by -i to i; and i by -i to 1: all changes involving rotations through -90 degrees.

The figure below shows another way to interpret these rotations that amounts to the same tbing: i¹ = i; i² =-1; i³ = -i; i⁴ = 1.  Click to enlarge.

Four numbers on the real line multiplied by integer powers of the imaginary unit, which corresponds to rotations by multiples of the right angle. By Keφr [CC0],via Wikimedia Commons

I think a committee of some sort must have come up with this resplendent plan. For certain it was an Academy of Mathematics and Sciences that endorsed and enthroned it. All bow to central authority.

I had planned to include a comparison of imaginary numbers and probable numbers in this post as well but because that is a long discussion itself, it will have to wait till the next post.  I might add it should prove well worth the wait.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Mathematician William Rowan Hamilton  subsequently addressed this deficiency in 1843 with his  quaternions,  a  number system  that  extends the complex numbers to three-dimensional space.  Hamilton defined a quaternion as the quotient of two directed lines in a three-dimensional space  or,  in other words, as the quotient of two vectors.  This complicated matters even more by introducing a non-commutative multiplication operation to the system, though to be fair the quaternion coordinate system has found some useful applications mainly for calculations involving 3-dimensional rotations,  as in 3-dimensional computer graphics,computer vision, and crystallographic texture analysis. Still it becomes problematic when theoretical physics attempts use of quaternions in calculations pertaining to  atomic and subatomic spaces  where rotations do not actually take place.  The conclusion to be drawn here is that quaternions can be usefully,  if somewhat clumsily,  applied to 3-dimensional macro-spaces but are inapproriate for accurate description of higher dimensional spaces. What is here unfortunate and misleading  is that quaternions apparently do describe outcomes of events in the quantum realm to some partial degree,  if not the mechanisms of the events themselves.  Physicists would not long tolerate them were that not so.

[ADDENDUM (24 APRIL, 2016)
Since writing this I’ve learned that quaternions are not currently used in quantum physics nor were they ever, to any great degree, in the past.]

In other words, sometimes  the right answer  can be reached by a wrong method. In the case under discussion here, we should note that it is possible for a rotation to mimic inversion (reflection through a point). A 90° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion in a single plane through an edge of a square, and a 180° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion through a diagonal of a square  or  two successive inversions  through  two perpendicular edges of a square.  A 180° rotation in three dimensions  can mimic three inversions through three mutually perpendicular edges of a square;  a combination of  one inversion through a diagonal of a square  and another through an edge perpendicular to the plane of the first inversion;  or a single inversion through a diagonal of the cube. Subatomic paricles exist as discrete or quantized entities and would follow such methods of transformation rather than rotations through a continuous space.  Of course, transformations involving a diagonal would require more transformative energy than one involving a single edge.

Such patterns of relationship and transformation could no doubt be described in terms of quantum states and quantum numbers without too much difficulty by a knowledgeable theoretical physicist.  Surely doing so could be no more difficult than using quaternions,  which may give a correct answer while also misleading and limiting knowledge of the the true workings of the quantum realm by using an incorrect mechanism, one non-commutative to boot. Nature doesn’t approve of hat tricks like that.

Mandalic geometry, Cartesian coordinates and Boolean algebra: Relationships - I

(continued from here)

In attempting to understand the logic of the I Ching it is important to know the differences between ordinary algebra  and  Boolean algebra and how Boolean algebra is related to the binary number system.^[1]

In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted
1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are  numbers,  and the  main operations  are  addition and multiplication,  the main
operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunctionand, denoted ∧, the disjunctionor, denoted ∨, and the negationnot, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes
numeric relations. [Wikipedia]

Whereas in elementary algebra expressions denote mainly numbers, in Boolean algebra they denote the truth values false and true. These values are represented with the bits (or binary digits), namely 0 and 1.  They do not behave like the integers  0 and 1,  for which
1 + 1 = 2, but may be identified with the elements of the two-element field GF(2), that is, integer arithmetic modulo 2,  for which 1 + 1 = 0.  Addition and multiplication then play the  Boolean roles  of  XOR  (exclusive-or)  and  AND  (conjunction)  respectively, with disjunction  x∨y  (inclusive-or)  definable as  x + y + xy. [Wikipedia]^[2]

Mandalic logic already occurs fully in the structure and manner of divinatory practice of the I Ching,  if some of it only implicitly.  Although mandalic geometry does not originate from either Boolean algebra or the Cartesian coordinate system but from the primal I Ching which predates them by millennia, it does combine and augment aspects of both of these conceptual systems. It extends Boole’s system of symbolic logic to include an additional logic value represented by the number -1.  This necessitates modification of some of Boole’s postulates and rules,  and increases their total number through introduction of some new ones.  The hexagrams or native six-dimensional mandalic coordinates of the I Ching are related to Cartesian triads composed of the numbers -1, 0, and 1,  making these two geometric systems  commensurate  by means of composite dimension,  a 6D/3D hybridization or mandalic coordination of structure and function (or space and time).^[3]

The introduction of composite dimension produces four distinct dimensional amplitudes  and  is solely responsible for the mandalic form. For anyone reading this who might be down on sacred geometry,  itself a subject which I respect and admire, let it be known that I am talking here about genuine mathematics and symbolic logic,  and my suspicion is that there is some genuine physics involved as well.

Kalachakra Mandala

The mandalic number system, then, is a quasi-modular number system, different from Leibniz’s binary number system which is fully modular.  Boole’s rule  1 AND 1 = 1  still holds true in mandalic logic.  However we must add to this the new logic rule that  -1 AND -1 = -1.  Individually the two rules are modular,  based on a clock arithmetic using a modulo-3 number system rather than Leibniz’s modulo-2 or binary number system, but with yet another added twist.

Together the two rules prescribe a compound system, one which is not singly modular but doubly modular.  The two components, yinandyang, are complementary and are inversely related to one another in this unified system.  This  logic organization  appears based on the figure 8 or sine wave and its negative,  allowing for periodicity, for recursive periods of interminably repeating duration,  and,  perhaps most importantly,  for wave interference,  of  constructive  and  destructive  varieties. These two geometric figures also engender an unexpected decussation of dimension not recognized by Western mathematics.  This is so because 1 AND -1 = 0 and  -1 AND 1 = 0.  The surprise here  is that  there are two distinct zeros: 0_a and 0_b.^[4] In two- or three-dimensional Cartesian terms there exists no difference between these two zeros.  However,  in terms of 6-dimensional aspects of mandalic geometry  and  the hexagrams of the I Ching, the two are clearly distinct structurally and functionally.^[5]

This arithmetic system is the basis of the logic encoded in the hexagrams of the I Ching. Each hexagram uniquely references a single 6- dimensional discretized point, of which there are 64 total. These 64 6- dimensional points of the mandalic cube are distributed among the 27 discretized points  of the ordinary 3-dimensional cube  through the compositing of dimensions  in such manner  that a mandala is formed which positions  1,  2,  4  or  8 hexagrams at each 3-dimensional point according to the   dimensional amplitude  of the particular point.  This necessarily creates a concurrent probability distribution of hexagrams through each of the three Cartesian dimensions.

TheI Chinguses a dual or composite three-valued logic system.  In place of truth values,  the variables used are yin,  yang  and the two in conjunction.  These fundamentally represent vector directions.  Yin is represented by -1, yang by 1, and their conjunction, using Cartesian or Western number terminology, by zero (0). This symbol does not occur natively in the I Ching though where the representation used is simply a combination of yin and yang symbols, most often in form of a bigram containing both  and  regarded as representing a composite dimension, namely 0_[1]  or  0_[2].^[6]

The two bigrams that satisfy the requirement are

young yang

for 0_[1]

and

young yin

for 0_[2].

Although mandalic logic is in Cartesian terms a 3-valued system, in native terms it is 4-valued.  It is not a simple modulo-3  or  modulo-4 number system, but two interrelated modulo-3 systems combined.  The best way to think about this geometric arrangement is possibly to view it as a single composite dimension having four distinct vector directions: a negative direction represented by mandalic composite yin (Cartesian -1); positive direction represented by mandalic composite yang (Cartesian 1); and two decussating relatively undifferentiated directions in some sort of equilibrium, represented by mandalic 0_[1] (composite yin/yang) and 0_[2] (composite yang/yin).  both of which  devolve  to  Cartesian 0  (balanced vector direction of the origin or center).^[7]

So we’ve seen that the number system used in the I Ching is not binary as Leibniz believed but instead doubly trinary with the two halves, in simplest terms,  inversely related and intertwined.  Still, it was an easy mistake to make because the notation used is binary.  We’ve seen too that all trigrams and hexagrams in the system can be rendered commensurate with the Cartesian coordinate system:  trigrams by simple transliteration, hexagrams by dimensional compositing. What, then, of George Boole and his eponymous logic?  How do they fit in the logic scheme of the I Ching? I’m glad you asked. Stay tuned to find out.

(continuedhere)

Images: Upper: TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYMBOL OF YIN (LINE split in two) AND YANG (STRAIGHT-LINE). BLEND: 4 bigrams, THEN 8 trigrams. (MORAN, E. ET AL. 2002: 77). Found here. Lower: Modified from an animation showing how the taijitu (yin-yang diagram) may be drawn using circles, then erasing half of each of the smaller circles. O'Dea at WikiCommons [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Boole’s algebra predated the modern developmentsinabstract algebra and  mathematical logic  but is seen as connected to the origins of both fields. Similarly to elementary algebra, the pure equational part of the theory can be formulated without regard to explicit values for the variables.

[2] If you are new to Boolean algebra these definitions may be confusing because in some ways they seem to fly in the face of ordinary algebra.  I’ll admit, I find them somewhat daunting.  Let me see if I can clarify the three examples given in this quote. Those of you more familiar with the language of Boolean algebra might kindly correct me in the event I err.  I’m growing more comfortable with being wrong at times.  And this is after all a work in progress.

• Boolean XOR (exclusive-or) allows that a statement of the form (x XOR y) is TRUE
  if either x or y is TRUE but FALSE if both are TRUE or if both are FALSE.  Since Boolean algebra uses binary numbers and represents  TRUE by 1,  FALSE by 0,  then
            for  x = TRUE,   y = TRUE    x + y = 1 + 1 = 0 ,    so FALSE
            for  x = FALSE,  y = FALSE   x + y = 0 + 0 = 0 ,  so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,    y = FALSE   x + y = 1 + 0 = 1 ,   so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = TRUE    x + y = 0 + 1 = 1 ,   so TRUE

• Boolean AND (conjunction) allows that a statement of the form (x AND y) is TRUE
  only if both x is TRUE and y is TRUE. If either x or y is FALSE or both are FALSE
  then x AND y is FALSE. Here algebraic multiplication of binary 1s and 0s plays the
  role of Boolean AND. (Incidentally, binary multiplication works exactly the same
  way as algebraic multiplication. There’s a gift!)
            for  x = TRUE,    y = TRUE      xy  =  1(1) = 1,    so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = FALSE     xy = 0(0) = 0,   so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,    y = FALSE      xy = 1(0) = 0 ,  so FALSE
            for  x = FALSE,    y = TRUE      xy = 0(1) = 0 ,  so FALSE

• Boolean OR (inclusive-or) is the truth-functional operator of (inclusive) disjunction,
  also known as alternation. The OR of a set of operands is true if and only if one or
  more of its operands is true. The logical connective that represents this operator is
  generally written as ∨ or +. As stated in the Wikipedia article logical disjunction x∨y
  (inclusive-or) is definable as x + y + xy [(x OR y) OR (x AND y)] as shown below.
  [Note: x AND y is often written xy in Boolean algebra. So watch out whichalgebra
  is being referred to, ordinary or Boolean. Are we confused yet?]
            for  x = TRUE,    y = TRUE      x + y = 1 , xy = 1 ,    so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = FALSE     x + y = 0 , xy = 0 ,   so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,     y = FALSE     x + y = 1 , xy = 0 ,   so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,    y = TRUE      x + y = 1 , xy = 0 ,   so TRUE
  

[3] Fundamentally, though,  the  coordinates of mandalic geometry  refer to vector directions alone, rather than to both vectors and scalars (or direction and magnitude) as do Cartesian coordinates. Yin specifies actually the entire domain of negative numbers rather than just the scalar value -1. Yang similarly refers to the entire domain of positive numbers rather than the scalar value 1 alone. Their conjunction  through the compositing of dimensions,  though represented by the symbol zero (0)  in the format commensurate with Cartesian coordinates,  refers actually to a  state or condition  not found in Western thought  outside of certain forms of mysticism  and other outsider philosophies like alchemy;  equilibration of forces in physics; equilibrium reactions in chemistry; and the kindred concept of homeostasis mechanisms of living organisms found in biology.

[4] This is to Westerners counterintuitive. Our customary logic and arithmetic allows for but a single zero. That two different zeros might exist concurrently or consecutively is - to our minds - irrational and we wrestle mightily with the idea. To complicate matters still more,  neither of these zeros is  conveniently  like our familiar Western zero.  So which should win out here?  Rationality or reality?  In fact,  the decision is not ours.  In the end nature decides.  Nature always decides. It stuffs the ballot box  and  casts the deciding vote much to our chagrin,  leaving us powerless to contradict what we may interpret as a whim. Our votes count for bupkis.

[5] This calls to mind also the Möbius strip which involves a twist that looks very much like a decussation to me.  The decussation or  twist in space  we are talking about here though has a sort of wormhole at its center that connects two contiguous dimensional amplitudes. I can’t say more about this just now. I need to think on it still. It seems a promising subject for reflection. (1,2,3)

[6] It needs to be pointed out here that in mandalic geometry, and similarly in the primal I Ching as well,  a bigram can be formed from any two related Lines of  hexagrams,  trigrams,  and tetragrams. The two Lines need not be (and often are not) adjacent to one another. I would think such versatility might well prove useful for modeling and mapping quantum states and interactions.

[7] Note that yin and yang in composite dimension can each take the absolute values 0, 1, and 2  but when yin has absolute value 2, yang has absolute value 0; when yang has absolute value 2,  yin has absolute value 0.  This inverse relation in fact is what makes the arrangement here a superimposed, actually interwoven, dual modulo-3 number system. It also makes the center points of mandalic lines,squares,  and cubes  more protean and less differentiated  than their vertices and elicits the different amplitudes of dimension.

The composite dimension value at the origin points(centers) of all of these geometric figures is  always  zero  in  Cartesian  terms  since the values of the differing Lines  in  the  two entangled 6-dimensional hexagrams  located here add to zero. But neither of these 6-dimensional entities is in its ground state at the center.  Both  have absolute value 1  at Cartesian 0.  Let me say that again: composite dimension values at the center or origin are zero in Cartesian terms but the values of both individual constituents are non-zero.Yin is in its ground state when yang is at its maximum and vice versa. At the center, since the two are equal and opposite they interfere destructively. This results in a composite zero ground state.

So from the perspective of  Cartesian coordinate dynamics, which is after all the customary perspective in our subjective lives,  we encounter only emptiness. But it is this very emptiness that opens to a new dimension. In the hybrid 6D/3D mandalic cube  only line centers and the cube center  have direct access through change of one dimension to face centers and only the face centers have a similar direct access through a single dimension to the cube center and edge centers. All coexist in an ongoing harmony of tensegrity. There is method to all this madness then.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form.  Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 302-

Mandalic Line Segments,
Entanglement and Quantum Gravity
Part I

(continued from here)

We are going to consider once again now geometric line segments of mandalic geometry  and  their relation to Cartesian line segments and the Western number line. Yes,  this is sort of a detour from what I stated we would look at next. But this is not unrelated and lies at the very heart of mandalic geometry, and I’m not yet ready to address what I projected in the last remark of my previous post.

I keep returning to this subject because of its extreme importance. Beyond its significance to understanding the logic encoded in mandalic geometry and the I Ching, I believe it may also hold the key to quantum entanglement and quantum gravity.  Despite the fact that mandalic line segments are really fundamentally mental constructs,  a fiction of sorts, it is still important to understand how they are composed and how their components interact.  Though they may themselves be fictions,  the line segments and the points that compose them do in fact map a number of physical entities,  realities that may be related to quantum numbers and quantum particles and states.

When Descartes invented his coordinate system, with its points and line segments,  he based his system on the number line extended to two or three dimensions. In modeling it on the number line the space he described was imagined to bear a  necessary  one to one correspondence to the real numbers.^[1]  However this  1:1 mapping  of geometric space to the real numbers was a premise implicitly assumed by Descartes.  It was in fact axiomatic,^[2]  but apparently not stated as such.^[3]  As a result, the presumed relation has become a blind spot^[4] in Western thought,  never proved nor disproved, at least not at subatomic scales.^[5]

Neither mandalic geometry nor the primal I Ching make such an assumption. In place of Descartes’ 1:1 correspondence of geometric space and the numbers on the number line, we find a mandalic arrangement in which there are different categories of spatial location which can host one or more discrete numbers in a probabilistic manner.  This creates various dimensional amplitudes and a multidimensional waveform of component entities.^[6]

To my mind these characteristics of the mandalic coordinate system in combination with others described elsewhere make it more relevant to investigation and interpretation of many quantum phenomena which are as yet poorly understood than Cartesian coordinate dynamics may be and without need for recourse to imaginary numbers and complex plane.

(continuedhere)

Image: 6 steps of the Sierpinski carpet, animated. By KarocksOrkav (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Real numbers are numbers that can be found on the number line. This includes both the rational and irrational numbers.

[2] That is to say, taken for granted as self-evident.

[3] See Note [4] here.

[4] We have lived with this unproved premise so long that we no longer even question it,  or imagine that there might be an alternative which conforms better to reality at certain scales, notably subatomic scales.  The I Ching also seems to suggest  that a complete true description of complex relationships that involve a large number of dimensions,  including complex societal relationships,  requires more than a simple 1:1 correspondence between the notational symbols involved and the realities they represent.

[5] And from what I can see, no one seems to have much interest in proving or disproving this assumption.

[6] When speaking about hexagrams the number of dimensions involved is six as each Line of the hexagram encodes a value for a single distinct dimension in a 6-dimensional space.  In a hybrid 6D/3D compositing of dimensions though, two such Lines in relation reference a single Cartesian dimension in 2- or 3-space.  A concept not to be missed here is that  interactions of quantum particles  may well involve such  integration of dimension,  of dimensions  we are not even aware of beyond the unsettling fact  they upset the neat applecart of customary conceptual categories.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form.  Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 301-

Beyond Taoism - Part 4
A Vector-based Probabilistic
Number System
Introduction

(continued from here)

Leibniz erred in concluding the hexagrams of the I Ching were based on a number system related to his own  binary number system.  He had a brilliant mind but was just as fallible as the rest of us.  He interpreted the I Ching in terms of his own thought forms,  and he saw the hexagrams as a foreshadowing of his own binary arithmetic.^[1]

So in considering the hexagram Receptive,  Leibniz understood the number 0; in the hexagram Return, the number 1; in the hexagram Army, the number 2; in the hexagram Approach, the number 3;  in the hexagram Modesty,  the number 4;  in the hexagram  Darkening of the Light, the number 5;  and so on, up to the hexagram Creative, in which he saw the number 63.^[2]  His error is perhaps excusable in light of the fact that the Taoists, though much closer to the origin of the I Ching in time, themselves misinterpreted the number system it was based on.^[3]

From our Western perspectiveI Ching hexagrams are composed of trigrams, tetragrams, bigrams, and ultimately yinandyang Lines. From the native perspective of the I Ching this order of arrangement is putting the cart before the horse.  Dimensions  and their interactions  are,  in the view of I Ching philosophy and mandalic geometry,  antecedent logically and materially to any cognitive parts we may abstract from them. Taoism in certain contexts has abstracted the parts and caused them to appear as if primary. It has the right to do so if creating its own philosophy,  but not as interpretation of the logic of the I Ching. It is a fallacy if so intended.^[4]

The Taoists borrowed from the I Ching two-dimensional numbers, treated them as one-dimensional and based their quasi-modular number system on  the dimension-deficient result.  This is the way they arrived at their seasonal cycle consisting of bigrams:   old yin (Winter),  young yang (Spring), old yang (Summer), young yin (Autumn), old yin (Winter),  and so forth. This represents a very much impoverished and impaired version of the original configuration in the primal strata of the I Ching.^[5]

The number system of the I Ching is not a linear one-dimensional number system like  the positional decimal number system  of the West; nor is it like the positional binary number system invented by Leibniz. It is not even like the quasi-modular number system of Taoism.  The key to the number system of the hexagrams is located not in the 64 unchanging explicit hexagrams,  but rather in the changing implicit hexagrams found only in the divination practice associated with the I Ching. These number 4032.^[6]  The manner in which these operate,  however,  is actually  fairly simple and is uniform throughout the system.  So once understood,  they can be safely relegated to the implicit background, coming into play only during procedures involving divination or in attempts to understand the system fully, logically and materially.  When dealing with more ordinary circumstances just the 64 more stable hexagrams need be attended to in a direct and explicit manner.

The Taoist sequence of bigrams is in fact a corruption of the far richer asequential multidimensional arrangement of bigrams that occurs in I Ching hexagrams and divination. There we see that change can occur from any one of the four stable bigrams to any other.  If this is so then no single sequence can do justice to the total number possible. The ordering of bigrams presented by Taoism is just one of many that make up the real worlds of nature and humankind.  Taoism imparts special significance to this sequence; the primal I Ching does not. It views all possible pathways of change as equally likely.^[7]

Next time around we will look further into the implications of this equipotentiality and see how it plays out in regard to the number system of the I Ching.

Section F_H(n)^[8]

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] By equating yang with 1 and yin with 0 it is possibletosequence the 64 I Ching hexagrams according to binary numbers 0 through 63.  The mere fact that this is possible does not, however, mean that this was intended at the time the hexagrams were originally formulated. Unfortunately, this arrangement of hexagrams seems to have been the only one of which Leibniz had knowledge. This sequence was, in fact, the creation of the Chinese philosopher Shao Yong (1011–1077). It did not exist in human mentation prior to the 11th century CE.

This arrangement was set down by the Song dynasty philosopher Shao Yong (1011–1077 CE), six
centuries before Wilhelm Leibniz described binary notation. Leibniz published ‘De progressione
dyadica’ in 1679. In 1701 the Jesuit Joachim Bouvet wrote to him enclosing a copy of Shao Yong’s 'Xiantian cixu’ (Before Heaven sequence). [Source]

Note also that the author of Calling crane in the shade, the source quoted above, calls attention to confusion that exists about whether the “true binary sequence of hexagrams” should begin with the lowest line as the least significant bit (LSB) or the highest line. He points out that the Fuxi sequence as transmitted by Shao Yong in both circular and square diagrams takes the highest line as the LSB, although in fact it would make more sense in consideration of how the hexagram form is interpreted to take the lowest line as the LSB. My thinking is that either Shao Yong misinterpreted the usage of hexagram form or, more likely, the conventional interpretation of the Shao Yong diagrams is incorrect. Here I have chosen to use the lowest line of the hexagram as the LSB,  and I think it possible  Leibniz may have done the same.

If one considers the circular Shao Yong diagram,  the easier of the two to follow,  one can reconstruct the binary sequence,  with the lowest line as LSB,  by beginning with the hexagram EARTH at the center lower right half of the circle, reading all hexagrams from outside line (bottom) to inside line (top),  progressing counterclockwise to  MOUNTAIN over WIND at top center, then jumping to hexagram  MOUNTAIN over EARTH  bottom center of left half of the circle,  and progressing clockwise to hexagram  HEAVEN  at top center.  Of the two,  this is the interpretation that makes the more sense to me and the one I have followed here, despite the fact that it is not the received traditional interpretation of the Shao Yong sequence. Historical transmissions have not infrequently erred. Admittedly it is difficult to decipher all Lines of some of the hexagrams  in the copy Leibniz received due to passage of time and its effects on paper and ink.  Time is not kind to ink and paper, nor for that matter to flesh and products of intellect.

In the final analysis, which of the two described interpretations is the better is moot because neither conforms to the logic of the I Ching which is not binary to begin with. Moreover,  there is a third interpretation of the Shao Yong sequence that is superior to either described here.  It is not binary-based.  And why should it be? After all the Fuxi trigram sequence  which Shao Yong took as model for his hexagram sequence  is itself not binary-based. Perhaps we’ll consider that interpretation somewhere down the road. For now, the main take-away is that Leibniz, in his biased interpretation of the I Ching hexagrams made one huge mistake.  Ironically,  had he not some 22 years prior already invented  binary arithmetic, this error likely would have led him to invent it.  It was “in the cards” as they say. At least in certain probable worlds.

[2]ReceptiveandCreative are alternative names for the hexagrams EarthandHeaven, respectively. The sequence detailed can be continued ad infinitum using yin-yang notation, though of course this takes us beyond the realm of hexagrams into what would be, for mandalic geometry and logistics of the I Ching, domains of dimensions numbering more than six.  Keep in mind here though that Leibniz was not thinking in terms of dimension but an  alternative method  of expressing the prevalent base 10 positional number system notation of the West.  He held in his grasp the key to unlocking an even greater treasure but apparently never once saw that was so.  This seems strange considering his broadly diversified interests and pursuits in the fields of  mathematics,  physics,  symbolic logic,  information science,  combinatorics,  and in the nature of space.  Moreover,  his concern with these was not just as separate subjects of investigation.  He envisaged uniting all of them in a  universal language  capable of expressing mathematical,  scientific, and metaphysical concepts.

[3] Earlier in this blog I have too often confused Taoism with pre-Taoism. The earliest strata of the I Ching belong to an age that preceded Taoism by centuries, if not millennia.  Though Taoism was largely based on the philosophy and logic of the I Ching,  it didn’t always interpret source materials correctly,  or possibly at times it intentionally used source materials in new ways largely foreign to the originals. The number system of the I Ching is a case in point.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not an expert in the history or philosophy of Taoism.  Taoist philosophies are diverse and extensive. No one has a complete set or grasp of all the thoughts, practices and techniques of Taoism. The two core Taoist texts, the  Tao Te ChingandChuang-tzu,   provide the philosophical basis of Taoism which derives from the eight trigrams (bagua) of Fu Xi, c. 2700 BCE, the various combinations of which created the 64 hexagrams documented in the I Ching.  The Daozang,  also referred to as  the Taoist canon,  consists of around 1,400 texts that were collected c. 400, long after the two classic texts mentioned. What I describe as Taoist thought then is abstracted in some manner from a huge compilation, parts of which may well differ from what is presented here. Similar effects of time and history can be discerned in Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and secular schools of thought like Platonism,Aristotelianism,Humanism, etc.

[4] Recent advances in the sciences have begun to raise new ideas regarding the structure of reality. Many of these have parallels in Eastern thought.  There has been a shift away from the reductionist view in which things are explained by breaking them down then looking at their component parts, towards a more holistic view. Quantum physics notably has changed the way reality is viewed. There are no certainties at a quantum level, and the experimenter is necessarily part of the experiment. In this new view of nature everything is linked and man is himself one of the linkages.

[5] It is not so much that this is incorrect as that it isextremelylimiting with respect to the capacities of the I Ching hexagrams.  A special case has here been turned into a generalization that purports to cover all bases. This may serve well enough within the confines of Taoism but it comes nowhere near elaborating the number system native to the I Ching. We would be generous in describing it as a watered down version of a far more complex whole.  Through the centuries both Confucianism and Taoism  restructured the I Ching to make it conducive to their own purposes.  They edited it and revised it repeatedly,  generating commentary after commentary,  which were admixed with the original,  so that the I Ching as we have it today,  the I Ching of tradition,  is a hodgepodge of many convictions and many opinions. This makes the quest for the original features of the I Ching somewhat akin to an archaeological dig.  I find it not all that surprising  that the oracular methodology of consulting the I Ching  holds possibly greater promise in this endeavor than the written text.  The  early oral traditions  were preserved better,  I think,  by the uneducated masses who used the I Ching as their tool for divination than by philosophers and scholars who,  in their writings,  played too often a game of one-upmanship with the original.

[6] A Line can be either yin or yang, changing or unchanging. Then there are four possible Line types and six Lines to a hexagram.  This gives a total of 4096 changing and unchanging hexagrams (4⁶ = 4096). Since there are 64 unchanging hexagrams (2⁶ = 64) there must be 4032 changing hexagrams (4096-64 = 4032).

[7] This calls to mind the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics which was developed in its complete form by Richard Feynman in 1948. See, for example, this description of the path integral formulation in context of the double-slit experiment, the quintessential experiment of quantum mechanics.

[8] This is the closest frontal section to the viewer through the 3-dimensional cube using Taoist notation.  See here for further explanation.  Keep in mind this graph barely hints at the complexity of relationships found in the 6-dimensional hypercube which has in total 4096 distinct changing and unchanging hexagrams in contrast to the 16 changing and unchanging trigrams we see here. Though this model may be simple by comparison,  it will nevertheless serve us well as a key to deciphering the number system on which I Ching logic is based as well as the structure and context of the geometric line that can be derived by application of reductionist thought to the associated mandalic coordinate system of the I Ching hexagrams. We will refer back to this figure for that purpose in the near future.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 299-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - VIII
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Transliteration Series: Section F_H(n)

(continued from here)

We come now to the  Taoist/Cartesian  transliteration sections of the three-dimensional cube.^[1] The frontal F_H section seen below is the Cartesian xy-plane we’re all familiar with from the 2-dimensional version of the Cartesian coordinate system with the third Cartesian dimension (z) added to the labeling of points.  This gives us nine distinct Cartesian triad points: four vertices, four edge centers, and one face center.  For all of the points, the third Cartesian dimension (z) is constant in this slice,  and the vector value is positive (located toward the viewer with respect to the z=0 value of the z-axis or F_HE plane which we’ll be viewing in a future post.)

The diagram shown here relates changing and unchanging trigrams of the I Ching to corresponding Cartesian ordered triads. Descartes views each of his ordered triads as referring to a single point having substantive reality in Cartesian geometric space. The I Ching and mandalic geometry, on the other hand,  regard the trigrams as evanescent composite states of being in a spacetime which is ever-changing. They are relational elements in some ways analagous to the subatomic entities of particle physics.

Accordingly, it should be further understood each “point” here, though shown as a flat “square”,  has a third dimension implied, and is therefore actually a “cube”, only one face of which is seen.^[2]  Mandalic geometry considers the point a fictional device which actually refers to a common intersection of three or more planes in a three-dimensional context, or two or more lines in a two-dimensional context.  Moreover, mandalic geometry is a discretized geometry,  and the trigram must be considered as having a distributed domain of action. This is illustrated in all the Cartesian transliteration points by distributing eight copies of trigrams with appropriate changing and unchanging lines among eight vertex-analogues of each Cartesian point.

The key to labeling of points in this section^[3]  and  all those to follow can be found here.  Additionally,  by tradition,  adding an “x” to a yin line indicates it is a changing line and adding an “o” to a yang line indicates it is a changing line.  A changing yin line is considered an old yin line which is changing to a yang line;  a changing yang line,  an old yang line that is changing to a yinline.

Vector addition of two or more yinlines yields a yin line as result. Vector addition of two or more yang lines gives a yang line as the result. Vector addition of an unequal number of yin lines and yang lines yields as result that vector (yinoryang) in excess. Vector addition of an equal number of yin lines and yang lines gives as result Cartesian zero which, in  mandalic systematics  is to be considered a vector (direction)  rather than a scalar (magnitude).  This goes far in explaining how  the I Ching and Taoism managed without an explicit zero.

Thezero was implicit or understood without using a special symbol of designation.  Moreover,  it was conceived as representative of an order of reality  entirely different from  that distinguished by  the Western zero. It is,  however,  fully commensurate with  Cartesian coordinate dynamics. It is this alternative zero,  with its extraordinary capacities,  that provides access to potential dimensions  and to different amplitudes of dimension. This will be further elaborated in a future post where we will address how Boolean logic impacts what we’ve covered here.

For now simply note that the changing yin Line and changing yang Line  in the horizontal first dimension (x)  in each “point” shown in the middle column add to zero,  not the  zero of scalar magnitude  though, but the zero of vector equilibrium.

Section F_H(n)

In this section of the cube,  as in all frontal sections,  the third Line/dimension (z) never changes; the second Line/dimension (y) changes  only in columns,  as one progresses up or down;  the first Line/dimension changes only in the rows, progressing left or right. This is just a consequence of viewing  a two-dimensional Cartesian
xy-plane in context of a section of the three-dimensional Cartesian
xyz-cube. Although not the manner in which we are accustomed to viewing the plane,  it is nonetheless fully compatible with ordinary Cartesian coordinates.  It is simply an alternative perspective,  one more suited for analysis/demonstration of trigram relationships in a Cartesian setting.

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] This should be viewed as a work in progress. I’m still feeling my way with this so the content and/or format may change in the future. What is demonstrated here does not yet take into account  the manner in which Boolean logic relates to the distribution of changing and unchanging trigrams nor does this series of cube sections include the all-important geometric method of composite dimension. As described,  this is simply a Taoist notation transliteration of Cartesian coordinate structure.  The meat and potatoes of the matter is yet to come.  Of particular note here, though,  is the fact that even at this early stage of translation to a version of mandalic geometry that can be considered comprehensive,  what is possibly best described as a decussationbetweenyinandyang lines is already evident at every Cartesian triad point containing a “Cartesian zero”.  Worth mentioning here, this will be a key feature addressed in future posts.

[2]Point,  square,  and cube,  have all been placed in quotation marks to indicate that what is being referred to here is actually a different category of objects or elements which should in some sense be understood as relating to fractals or fractal structure and of a different dimensionality entirely than are those ordinary geometric objects. The admittedly deficient terminology used here is necessitated by the fact that sufficiently appropriate vocabulary terms to describe the reality intended do not currently exist,  or if they do are not as yet known to me.  Since we are representing a Cartesian point (ordered triad) as a quasi-cubic structure here,  it must have  a near face (n) and a far face (f) in each section with respect to the viewer. The chart displayed details the near face (n) of Section F_H.

[3] This is the frontal section through the cube nearest a viewer. It is Descartes’ xy-plane with label of the third dimension (z) added so each point label shown is a Cartesian ordered triad rather than an ordered pair as textbooks generally show the plane. Why the difference?  Because the geometry texts are interested only in demonstrating the two-dimensional plane in isolation,  whereas we want to see it as it exists in the context of three or more dimensions. Cartesian triads are shown by convention as (x,y,z),  so the xy-plane  emerges from the first two coordinates of the points in this section, and all the z-coordinates seen here are positive (+1). The F_E plane has all of its x and y coordinates identical to those seen here but its z-coordinates are all negative (-1). The F_HE plane has all the x and y coordinates identical to those seen here but its z-coordinates are all zero (0).

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 296-

Beyond Boole - Part 1
Symbolic Logic for the 21st Century

Boolean Algebra:
Fundamental Operations

(continued from here)

Looking back on how we arrived at this stage of reconstruction of Western thought,  I see the difficulty arose in attempting to explain the “missing zero” of Taoism. Blame our troubles on Leibniz. It was he who introduced binary numbers to the West,  and made the fateful choice of using zero(0) instead of -1 to counter with +1.  Leibniz knew full well of the I Ching, but did not understand it well. He missed the point, seeing in it only a resemblance to his own newly devised system of numbers.

By Leibniz’s time negative numbers were firmly entrenched in the European mind.  Why did  Leibniz  ignore them completely?  In doing so he blazed a new trail that led eventually to the digital revolution of recent times. It also led to a dead end in the history of Western thought, one the West has not yet come fully face to face with. It will, though. Give it a few more years.^[1]

George Boole, the inventor of what we know today as Boolean logic or Boolean algebra, was one of the thinkers who followed in the footsteps of Leibniz, building on the trail he blazed.^[2]  When he came to devise his truth tables,  he also chose zero(0) as the counterpart to one(1).  This led to certain resounding successes.  And ultimately,  to certain failures  that introduced yet another layer to the  blind spot  of Western symbolic logic. Here we are, almost two centuries later,^[3] saddled with and hampered by the unfortunate fallout of that eventful decision still.^[4]

Most arguments in elementary algebra denote numbers. However, in Boolean algebra, they denote  truth values  falseandtrue.  Convention has decreed these values are represented with the  bits (or binary digits), namely 0 and 1.  They do not behave like the integers 0 and 1 though, for which 1 + 1 = 2,  but are identified with the elements of the  two-element field GF(2), that is, integer arithmetic modulo 2, for which 1 + 1 = 0. (1,2) This causes a substantial problem when we attempt correlation of Taoist logic and Boolean logic. As we will soon discover, Taoist logic is a hybrid logic that is based on both vector inversion and arithmetic modulo 2.  As such,  it ought prove relatable to both Cartesian coordinates and Boolean algebra, though it may necessitate “forcing a larger foot in a smaller glass slipper.”

Taoism chose ages ago to use ‘yin’ and 'yang’ as its logical symbols. Although this appears, at first, to be a binary system, like those of Leibniz and Boole, on closer inspection it proves not to be.  It is one of far greater logical complexity, alternatively binary or ternary with intermediate third element understood. This implied third element is able to bestow balance and equilibrium throughout all of the Taoist logical system.  This is where the 'missing zero’ of Taoism went.  Only it is a very different zero than the 'zero’ of Western thought.  It is a zero of infinite potential rather than one of absolute emptiness.  It is a  zero  of  continual beginnings and endings, not of finality. It is one of the things that make the I Ching totally unique in the history of human cognition.  All these hidden zeros are wormholes between dimensions and between different amplitudes of dimension.

So where does this all lead to, then? We’ve seen that the Taoist 'yin’ can readily be made commensurate with 'minus 1’ of Western arithmetic, the number line,  and  Cartesian coordinates.^[5]  But if it is to remain true to Taoist logic,  it cannot be made commensurate with the Western 'zero’. We’ve found the Taoist number system and geometry to be Cartesian-like but not Cartesian. Now we discover them to be Boolean-like, not Boolean. Sorry, Leibniz,  they are not so much as remotely like your binary system. You were far too quick to disesteem the unique qualities of the I Ching.^[6]

This all has far-reaching consequences for Western thought in general. Especially though, for symbolic logic, mathematics, and physics. More specifically for our purposes here it means that when we create our Taoist notation transliteration of Cartesian coordinates, we will need also to translate Boolean logic into terms compatible with Taoist thought, that is to say, from a two-value system based on '1s’ and '0s’ into a three-value system based on '1s’, ’-1s’, and the ever-elusive invisible balancing-act '0s’ of Taoism.^[7] We turn to that undertaking next.

(continuedhere)

Image: Fundamental operations of Boolean algebra.  Symbolic Logic, Boolean Algebra and the Design of Digital Systems. By the Technical Staff of Computer Control Company, Inc.  Other logical operations exist and are found useful by non-engineer logicians.  However, these can always be derived from the three shown. These three are most readily implementable by electronic means. The digital engineer, therefore,  is usually concerned only with these fundamental operations of conjunction, disjunction, and negation.

Notes

[1] It is at times like this that I am thankful I am not a member of Academia. Were I so, I could not afford, from a practical standpoint, to make claims such as this. Tenure notwithstanding.

[2] A knowledge of the binary number system is an important adjunct to an understanding of the fundamentals of Symbolic Logic.

[3] If we look back far enough in time, it was the introduction of “zero” as a number and a philosophical concept that led us down this tangled garden path, though the history of human thought is nothing if not interesting.

[4] Far out speculative thought here:  Were binary numbers and Boolean logic based on +1s and -1s instead of +1s and 0s,  might it not be possible to construct today a software-based quantum computer requiring no fancy juxtapositions and superpositions of subatomic particles?  Think on it for a while before dismissing the thought as irrational folly.

[5] More correctly expressed, it can be made commensurate with the domain of negative numbers, since it is a vector symbol, properly speaking, concerned only with direction, not magnitude.

[6] Unfortunately there is still little understanding of the true nature of the symbolic logic encoded in the I Ching, as exemplified by this quote:

The I Ching dates from the 9th century BC in China. The binary notation in the
I Ching is used to interpret its quaternary divination technique.

It is based on taoistic duality of yin and yang.Eight trigrams (Bagua) and a set of 64 hexagrams (“sixty-four” gua), analogous to the three-bit and six-bit binary numerals, were in use at least as early as the Zhou Dynasty of ancient China.

The contemporary scholar Shao Yong rearranged the hexagrams in a format that resembles modern binary numbers, although he did not intend his arrangement to be used mathematically. Viewing the least significant bit on top of single hexagrams in Shao Yong’s square and reading along rows either from bottom right to top left with solid lines as 0 and broken lines as 1 or from top left to bottom right with solid lines
as 1 and broken lines as 0 hexagrams can be interpreted as sequence from 0 to 63.

[Wikipedia]

It was this Shao Yong sequence of hexagrams (Before Heaven sequence) that Leibniz viewed six centuries after the Chinese scholar created it, so maybe he can be forgiven his error after all.

The more significant point here might be that an important  Neo-Confucian philosopher, cosmologist, poet, and historian of the 11th century either was no longer able to access the original logic and meaning of the I Ching or, at the very least, was hellbent on reinterpreting it in a manner contradictory to its original intent.  The latter is a distinct possibility,  as Neo-Confucianism was an attempt to create a more rationalist secular form of Confucianism by rejecting superstitious and mystical elements of  Taoism and Buddhism that had influenced Confucianism since the Han Dynasty (206 BC–220 AD).

[7] Taoist logic and mandalic geometry share some of the characteristics of both Cartesian coordinates and Boolean logic,  but not all of either.  Descartes’ system is indeed a ternary one when viewed in terms of vector direction rather than scalar magnitude. That fits with the requirements of Taoist logic.  It is, on the other hand, dimension-poor,  as Taoist logic and geometry require a full six independent dimensions for execution.  Boolean logic lacks the necessary third logical element -1, which causes inversion through a central point of mediation. But we shall see, it does bestow the ability to enter and exit a greater number of dimensional levels by means of its logical gates. Used together in an appropriate manner, these two can provide a key to understanding Taoist logic and geometry. Speculating even further, Taoist thought might provide a key to interpretation of quantum mechanics, the same quantum mechanics devised in the early twentieth century that no one can yet explain. Well,  I mean, actually,  Taoist thought in the formulation given it by mandalic geometry.  Why feign modesty, when this work will likely linger in near-total obscurity for the next hundred years gathering dust or whatever it is that pixels gather in darkness undisturbed.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 294-

Beyond Descartes - Part 10
Taoism Meets Boolean Logic: Introduction

Logic gate symbols

(continued from here)

Before we can hope to comprehend Taoist arithmetic and geometry we need to take a short detour through Boolean logic. First and foremost, we need to see how Boolean logic^[1] relates to Cartesian coordinates. That will provide what may be the best foundation available for understanding the Taoist approach to mapping of spacetime and the methodology which mandalic geometry derived from it.^[2]

For Descartes, his coordinate system is one thing,  his coordinate geometry another.  For Taoism, the coordinate system is the geometry.^[3] Boolean logic helps to explain how the two perspectives are similar,  how different. Cartesian coordinates are static and passive. Taoist coordinates and the derivative mandalic coordinates are active and dynamic.  In brief, the latter are changeable and self-changeable, a feat carried out by means of a brand of Boolean logic intrinsic to the system. Although it is true that Descartes’ coordinates do encode much the same information,  that is not where their focus of interest lies. Accordingly they turn our own attention elsewhere and we overlook those inherent possibilities.^[4]

Descartes’ geometric system is one based on vectors, that is, on both  magnitude and direction.  But in the scheme of things,  the former has somehow eclipsed the preeminence of the latter in the Western hive mind.  The opposite is true of Taoist thought and of mandalic geometry. Direction is uniformly revered as primary and prepotent. Magnitude, or scale,  is viewed as secondary and subordinate.  This mindset allows the Boolean nuances inherent in the system to come to the fore, where they are more easily recognized and deployed.

From such small and seemingly insignificant differences ensue entirely disparate worldviews.

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] George Boole’s monumental contribution to symbolic logic was published in 1854 but was viewed as only an interesting academic novelty until the second decade of the twentieth century,  when it was at last exhumed as a mathematical masterpiece by Whitehead and Russell in their Principia Mathematica.

[2] In Boolean logic (Boolean algebra) logical propositions are represented by algebraic equations in which  multiplication  and  addition  (and negation) are replaced with ‘and’ and 'or’ (and 'not’),  and where the numbers  '0’ and '1’ represent 'false’ and 'true’ respectively. Boolean logic has played a significant role in the development of computer programming and continues to do so.

[3] This is true also of mandalic geometry in its current formulation.

[4] This might be a proper place to proclaim that nature has little use for Descartes’ breed of coordinates,  finding them far too stagnant and limiting for her purposes. Fortuitously, she devised her own choice coordinate stock long before Descartes thought to invent his.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 293-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - VII
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Cartesian Series: Sections S_H, S_HE, S_E

(continued from here)

Below are the three sagittal sections of the Cartesian 3-cube. All three have nine distinct ordered triads,  one located at each discretized Cartesian spatial locus. S_H and S_E sections have four vertices, four edge centers and one face center as did the F_H,  F_E,  T_H, and T_E sections seen earlier. The S_HE section contains four edge centers and four face centers and also, as its central point, the single cube center,  as did the F_HE and T_HEsections.^[1]

These are all Cartesian yz-planes, seen in three-dimensional context at different x-values.  For S_H,  x = +1.  For S_HE,  x = 0.  For S_E,  x = -1.

The key to labeling of points in these sections and all those to follow can be found here.

Section S_H

Section S_HE

Section S_E

Having completed our survey of sections of the Cartesian 3- cube, we are now ready to view the Taoist transliteration equivalents.  Almost. But first …

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] See here for comment regarding the spurious appearance of edge and face centers in section F_HE. That comment applies to the S_HE and the T_HE sections as well. The deceptive appearance can be described as being an initially misleading artifact of the sectioning methodology.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 292-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - VI
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Cartesian Series: Sections T_H, T_HE, T_E

(continued from here)

We see grouped together below the three transverse sections of the Cartesian 3-cube. All three have nine distinct ordered triads, one located at each discretized Cartesian spatial locus.  Both T_H and T_E sections have four vertices, four edge centers,  and one face center as did the F_H and F_E sections seen earlier. The T_HE section contains four edge centers and four face centers, and also, as its central point, the single cube center.^[1]  These are all Cartesian xz-planes, seen in three-dimensional context at different y-values.  For T_H,  y = +1.  For T_HE,  y = 0.  For T_E,  y = -1.

The key to labeling of points in these sections and all those to follow can be found here.

Section T_H

Section T_HE

Section T_E

In the next post we’ll look at the three sagittal sections of the Cartesian 3-cube.

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] See here for comment regarding the spurious appearance of edge and face centers in section F_HE. That comment applies to the T_HE section as well and also to the S_HE section we will view in the next post.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 291-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - V
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Cartesian Series: Section F_E

(continued from here)

We see below the third and final frontal section of the 3-cube. The  F_E section is composed of nine distinct Cartesian ordered triads, with four vertices,  four edge centers,  and one face center like the F_H section seen earlier.  All x- and y-coordinates are identical to those in the F_H section and in identical relative position. All the z-coordinates here have a vector direction of -1 instead of +1. In other words, this is a Cartesian xy-plane placed in three-dimensional context with z value of -1.

The key to labeling of points in this section and all those to follow can be found here.

Section F_E

Next up, we begin a survey of transverse sections of the Cartesian 3- cube.

(continuedhere)

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 290-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - IV
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Cartesian Series: Section F_HE

(continued from here)

Below we have the second of three frontal sections through the 3-cube, labeled with the Cartesian coordinates of each point. This “slice” is through a plane that lies between an identity face, which contains the trigram  HEAVEN,  and an inversion face with the trigram  EARTH.  As such it does not belong fully to either the one or the other,  but it shares some characteristics of both. It is a plane, then, of mediation.  Again we see here nine Cartesian ordered triads. Due to an artifact of the “slicing” procedure,  the four edge centers deceptively appear as though vertices, and the four face centers could be taken as edge centers. Make note that these appearances are illusory.  At the center of this section we have the origin point of the cube, Cartesian (0,0,0).^[1]

The key to labeling of points in this section^[2] and all those to follow can be found here.

Section F_HE

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] It might be well to note here that the origin point of the coordinate system never appears in either an identity plane or an inversion plane of any of the three section types.  All of the planes in which it appears are mediation planes of three dimensions in the case of the Cartesian 3-cube,  or of six dimensions in the case of the hybrid mandalic 6D/3D hypercube.  This is likely the rationale for why in the  I Ching  a change involving passage through this central point  is referred to as  "crossing the Great Water.“  There must be more than coincidence in the fact that Western thought refers to this point as the "origin” and Taoist thought views it as the source and beginning of all things. It’s not that something important was lost in translation.  The two notions arose independently, from two very different worldviews. Somehow in the scheme of things, the West came to equate “origin” with  "zero"  whereas the East came to equate  "origin"  with “the beginning and end of all things.”  Taoism, in particular, sees in this a focus of both creation and dissolution. As we shall soon enough discover,  this alternative perspective leads to a different species of arithmetic,  one of great antiquity though long lost in the sands of time.  Mandalic geometry has unearthed it and will reveal it here, in this blog, for the first time in millennia.  As a teaser,  it involves a different treatment of what the West calls “zero”. It is an arithmetic more in line with Boolean logic.

[2] The 2-dimensional version of this section is obtained from the  x and y coordinates, which by convention are the first and second, respectively, in the Cartesian ordered triads seen here. So the only difference between this section and the F_Hsectionpreviously viewed is the fact that the z-coordinates here are all zero (0) instead of +1.  In our next section, F_E,  the x and y coordinates will again be as seen here but all z-coordinates will be -1.  I believe I detect a trend developing here.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 289-

Quantum Naughts and Crosses Revisited - III
The Cube Sliced and Diced
Cartesian Series: Section F_H

(continued from here)

The first slice through the cube, shown below, the F_H section,  is the Cartesian xy-plane we’re all familiar with from the 2-dimensional version of the Cartesian coordinate system with the third Cartesian dimension (z) added to the labeling of points.  This gives us nine distinct Cartesian triad points: four vertices, four edge centers, and one face center.  For all of the points, the third Cartesian dimension (z) is constant in this slice,  and the vector value is positive (located toward the viewer with respect to the z=0 value of the z-axis or F_HE plane which we’ll be viewing in the next post.)

The key to labeling of points in this section^[1] and all those to follow can be found here.

Section F_H

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] This is the frontal section through the cube nearest a viewer. It is Descartes’ xy-plane with label of the third dimension (z) added so each point label shown is a Cartesian ordered triad rather than an ordered pair as textbooks generally show the plane. Why the difference?  Because the geometry texts are interested only in demonstrating the two-dimensional plane in isolation,  whereas we want to see it as it exists in the context of three or more dimensions. Cartesian triads are shown by convention as (x,y,z),  so the xy-plane  emerges from the first two coordinates of the points in this section, and all the z-coordinates seen here are positive (+1). The F_E plane, which we’ll be viewing in the post after next, has all of its x and y coordinates identical to those seen here but its z-coordinates are all negative (-1).

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 288-

Beyond Descartes - Part 9:
The Potential Plane
and Probable States of Change

Composite Dimension and
Amplitudes of Potentiality
Episode 3

(continued from here)

We have seen that an imaginary number is a complex number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i,  which is defined by its property ixi =−1.  The square of an imaginary number bi is −b².  For example,  6i is an imaginary number,  and its square is −36.^[1] Other than 0,  imaginary numbers yield negative real numbers when they are squared.^[2]

Turning now to potential numbers, we can similarly define a unit of potentiality p by the property p x -p = -1. [Long pause here waiting for the other shoe to drop.] Just a minute, you say, that’s just like 1 x -1 = -1.  Yes, it is. And that is just the point. All real numbers. Nothing to imagine. And Descartes finally vindicated after all these years - imaginary numbers just imaginary after all.  But how does this work? Or does it even work?  What exactly is the point? Is this a joke? It’s no joke, I assure you.  It’s an easier and better way to achieve the same ends - - - and more. Muchmore.

The secret is in the sauce, I say slyly. Really? Well, yes - in a way. Though imaginaries use a sauce with nearly identical ingredients.  The recipe is p + (-p) = 0. And, of course, i + (-i) = 0 as well.  The trick is in how - - - and where - - - the sauce is applied.  In the potential plane the sauce is applied more liberally in more locations for greater lubrication.

Levity aside. (This is after all a TST^[3].) The complex plane uses a single axis.  This axis represents a new dimension, wholly distinct from the x, y and z dimensions.  Strangely,  we’re never informed where this axis/dimension might be located,  just that it is somewhere other than where x, y and z are located. Stranger still, the complex plane allocates the y-axis of the Cartesian plane for its own use in location of its points. Although never specifically mentioned, to my knowledge, I surmise the imaginary dimension exists in what mathematics and physics both call phase space.^[4]

The mandalic or potential plane uses no such underhanded plan. It openly posits the existence of six new dimensions, allocated equally with two accompanying each of the Cartesian dimensions,  all overtly evident. (All nine spatial dimensions in plain sight together, that is.)  Nothing left to the imagination. As the new dimensions are made commensurate with the old in a hybrid geometric display,  no imaginary dimension is needed. Coordinates of  all potential dimensions  are  readily communicable  with the real number system through all of the ordinary Cartesian dimensions concurrently along with the Cartesian coordinates.  Moreover,  mandalic geometry conjectures that the ordinary Cartesian dimensions may in fact originate in  interactions among number species  of potential dimensions filtered through impacts on inherited biological sensory mechanisms.^[5] This raises yet another interesting possibility.^[6]

In the long convoluted history of mathematics, the imaginary numbers were introduced as a correlative to the number line with its real numbers. That meant, among other things, that they were linear, consisting of a single dimension.  The  complex plane  related the two
in a kind of hybrid geometry that consisted of one real dimension and one imaginary dimension.  Mathematician  William Rowan Hamilton in 1843 proffered the  quaternions,  a number system that extends the complex numbers to three dimensions, whereupon things went, to my mind, from bad, to very much worse.

Quaternions came with certain dysfunctional characteristics, among them,  the fact that multiplication of two quaternions is noncommutative. This is problematic.  The imaginary and complex numbers,  at least,  had both been commutative.  Nevertheless, physics endorsed the quaternions as it earlier had imaginary and complex numbers.

Why? Because the quaternions do in fact give partly correct results, and when investigating a dimly illuminated region of reality, such as the subatomic world still is today, even partial results are heartily welcomed if that is all that can be had.  The sad consequence of this, is that physics has been led astray in its quest for truth for over a century now,  because partial truths can be much more misleading than complete errors. Total error is often uncovered much sooner than partial truth, which can pass undiscovered, depending upon circumstances, for a very long time.

Mandalic geometry will be shown to be free of the difficulty posed by noncommutative multiplication. It is fully commutative throughout its nine dimensions (three ordinary, six extraordinary). It was not composed that way from a number line,  with elements that could be commutatively multiplied with one another. It came that way fully formed from the start, in its primeval embodiment  as a multidimensional structure,  expressing behavior intrinsic to holistic nature.

Next time around, we’ll begin to look under the hood of the mandalic approach to geometry and see if we can grokit.

(continuedhere)

Image: (lower left) Imaginary unit i in the complex or Cartesian plane. Real numbers lie on horizontal axis, imaginary numbers on the vertical axis.  By Loadmaster  (David R. Tribble), (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL], via Wikimedia Commons; (lower right) A diagram of the complex plane. The imaginary numbers are on the vertical axis, the real numbers on the horizontal axis. By Oleg Alexandrov [GFDLorCC-BY-SA-3.0],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] 6²xi² = 36 x (-1) = -36.

[2] Zero (0) is considered both real and imaginary, and both the real part and the imaginary part are defined as real numbers. (If that makes little sense to you, don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger here, reporting what the mathematicians have stated to be the case.) This seems to me to be purely an arbitrary definition, and it confuses me as much as it probably does you.  Could it be they did this to avoid the situation where 0² x (-1) = -0?  I think I would find that definition less disturbing, welcome even.

[3] Newly coined Internet acronym for Truly Serious Topic. (Not to be confused with TSR Totally Stupid Rules.)

Speaking about “greater lubrication”(wewere a moment ago, remember?), I use the phrase not simply as  a figure of speech,  or a simile,  but rather,  as a metaphor.  "Spicing" of mandalic geometry with all those zeros of potentiality makes for a very “fluidic dish” which, I believe, reflects the changeable nature of reality far better than the stricter, strait-laced coordinates of Descartes or the complex plane are able to do. And it’s not just a matter of fluidity involved here. The mandalic form so begotten is, in fact, a probability distribution through the three Cartesian dimensions concurrently,  which feature alone  makes mandalic geometry an ideal candidate for application to quantum physics.

[4] A phase space of a dynamical system is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. In a phase space every degree of freedom or parameter of the system is represented as an axis of a multidimensional space; a one-dimensional system is called a phase line, while a two-dimensional system is called a phase plane.  For every possible state of the system (that is to say, any allowed combination of values of the system’s parameters) a point is included in the multidimensional space. [Wikipedia]

[5] I am speaking here of the hybrid 6D/3D formulation of mandalic geometry which combines the features of  dimensional numbers,  potential numbers,  and composite dimension,  this being a fully open access geometric system that has nothing hidden, nothing held back. What you see is what you get. (WYSIWYG)

[6] It is tempting to wonder whether there might be a close connection between the composite dimensions/potential coordinates  proposed by mandalic geometry and the pilot wave theoryorde Broglie–Bohm theory of quantum mechanics. At least there seems to be a correlation  between  David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order and the manifest/unmanifest (potential) coordinates of mandalic geometry.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 285-

Beyond Descartes - Part 8:
A Good Convention Gone Bad,
An Opportunity Missed

Composite Dimension and
Amplitudes of Potentiality
Episode 2

(continued from here)

We cannot blame Descartes for imaginary numbers. It was he, after all,  who christened these numbers “imaginary” due to his disdain for them.  We can,  however,  fault him  for his lack of insight  into how his coordinate system could be extended to create a viable substitute to show that imaginary numbers and the complex plane were nonsensical and make them unnecessary. Alas, that was not to be. Certain powerful forces of history decreed that imaginary numbers were here to stay and we seem stuck with them still, nearly five centuries later.

Not all would agree that imaginary numbers are a bad convention. We should all,  however,  be able to agree that they are  a convention and nothing more. They were invented by humanity.^[1]  Mathematics may not have taken to them at first - but did eventually welcome them into its fold for better or worse. The real damage was done when physics did the same without first subjecting the mathematical concepts involved to the kind of scrutiny and empirical review it demands of its own theories.

Where is the proof that imaginary numbers and complex plane in fact apply to the real world and particularly to the subatomic realm?  It is lacking in the main, and though the geometric concepts have indeed been successfully applied to a number of branches of physics  and explanations of  a variety of physical phenomena,  the reconciliation is incomplete,  the fit an uncomfortable one, and too many mysteries remain unexplained.

The term imaginary unit refers to a solution to the equation  x² = -1. By convention, the solution is usually denoted i. As no real number exists with this property,  the imaginary number i extends the real numbers and creates an entirely new and different category of numbers.  And crucially, at this point an assumption is made,  a rather sweeping assumption.  It is assumed that the properties of addition and multiplication we’re familiar with - (closure, associativity, commutativity and distributivity) - continue to hold true for this new species of number, or I should say, for this newly derived artificial species of number.  That may fly in the ivory tower^[2]  of pure mathematics,  but it lacks the wings and propelling force required to maneuver effectively in the real world that physics investigates.  Still,  the complex plane,  generated by mathematically motivated minds,  was soon adopted by physicists the world over.^[3]

Mandalic geometry offers an alternative solution in the effective combination of  dimensional numbers,  composite dimension,  and plane of potentiality. We’ll take a close look at potential numbers first. Let’s see how they stack up against  the imaginary numbers,  how  and where  they differ. Distinctions between complex plane and potential plane are subtle but they make for a world - a universe, actually - of difference. When next we meet, kindly check all preconceptions at the door.  Entirely untrodden paths await.

(continuedhere)

Image: (lower left) Imaginary unit i in the complex or Cartesian plane. Real numbers lie on horizontal axis, imaginary numbers on the vertical axis.  By Loadmaster  (David R. Tribble), (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL], via Wikimedia Commons; (lower right) A diagram of the complex plane. The imaginary numbers are on the vertical axis, the real numbers on the horizontal axis. By Oleg Alexandrov [GFDLorCC-BY-SA-3.0],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Let those who suppose differently, who believe them to be an indelible part of nature itself, prove their case. Until they do, I will see fit to call such numbers manmade inventions.

[2] I use the term ivory tower without malice of any kind in this context, rather judiciously, because mathematics demands no more than internal consistency for its particular brand of truth. It is not much interested in examining its definitions and axioms to determine how they shape up against hard reality. Mathematicians leave that  "sordid work"  to physicists and philosophers, both of whom are more willing to dig in  the mire of nature,  seeking its actual relics.  Enthusiastically to persist in such a real world-oblivious manner as pure mathematicians do, I think, requires a very special type of mind, one I don’t fully understand myself.

[3] In some circles this would be considered no less than a monumental leap of faith, particularly in view of the many unproved assumptions made in creation of imaginary and complex numbers. This was, in fact,  the New Faith  promulgated by Descartes’ contemporaries, the rationalists of the Age of Reason,  to supplant the Old Faiths of Religion and Scholasticism.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 284-

Beyond Descartes - Part 7

Composite Dimension and
Amplitudes of Potentiality
Episode 1

(continued from here)

Having frightened away all the cognitive wusses with my remark in that last post about the complexity of composite dimension and of the mandalic coordinate system  based on it,  I have a confession to make to those followers who remain. Although understanding the ideas involved requires a step back and viewing them from a different perspective alien to our Western modes of thought, composite dimension and the plane of potentiality are at once  more natural  and  far less complicated  than are imaginary numbers and the complex plane. Stay with me here. There is a light at the end of the tunnel growing ever brighter.

The 6D/3D mandalic cube is a hybrid structure having four levels of amplitude potentiality represented geometrically by 27 3D points which correspond to Cartesian points centered about Cartesian (0,0,0) and 64 6D points,  corresponding to the 64 hexagrams,  similarly centered and distributed among the 27 Cartesian points  in such a way  as to create a probability distribution through all three Cartesian dimensions,  that is with geometric progression of the number of hexagrams resident in the different amplitudes or orbitals. This gives rise to the mandalic form of the coordinate system. There are  four well-defined orbitals or shells  in this unique geometric arrangement of hexagrams and,  parenthetically, whatever it is they represent in physical terms.^[1]

We can conceptually abstract and decompose the 3D moiety of this concept entity, the part corresponding to Cartesian space. In doing so we identify a cube having a single center and eight vertices, all points by Euclidean/Cartesian reckoning, twelve edges (lines), each having an edge center (points), and six faces (planes), each having a center (point) equidistant from its four vertices. Each vertex point is shared equally by three faces or planes of the cube and each edge, by two adjacent faces or planes. We have  previously analyzed in detail  how the six planes of the 3D cube dovetail with one another and the repercussions involved. (See hereandhere.) One of the most important consequences we find is that each face center coordinates in a special way all four vertices of the face. This becomes particularly significant  in consideration of the composite dimension-derived hypercube faces of mandalic geometry.

The 6D moiety follows an analogous but more complex plan and has been formulated so as to be commensurate with the convention of the Cartesian coordinate system.  It also introduces measurement of a discretized time  to the coordinates,  thus rendering the geometry one of spacetime.  The hybrid 6D/3D configuration introduces probability as well through its bell curve/normal distribution (1, 2) of hexagrams; and also,  the two new directions,  manifestation (differentiation) and potentialization (dedifferentiation).^[2] These unfamiliar directions are unique to mandalic geometry and the I Ching upon which it is based.

In the lower diagram above, the figure on the right represents the skeletal structure of the hybrid 6D/3D coordinate system;  the figure on the left, the skeletal structure of the corresponding 3D Cartesian moiety. The  27 discretized points  of the cube on the left have become 64 points of the 6D hypercube on the right.  In the next post we will begin to flesh these two skeletons out.^[3] The end results are nothing short of amazing.

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] With this remark I am avowing that mandalic geometry is intended not just as an abstract pure mathematical formulation,  but rather as a logical/geometrical mapping of energetic relationships that exist at some scale of subatomic physics, Planck scale or other. I maintain the possibility that this is so despite the obvious and unfortunate truth  that we cannot now ascertain just what it is the hexagrams represent, and may, in fact, never be able to.

[2] Manifestation/differentiation corresponds to the direction of divergence; potentialization/dedifferentiation, to the direction of convergence. The former is motion away from a center; the latter, motion toward a center. Convergenceanddivergence are the two directions found in every Taoist line that do not occur in Cartesian space, at least not explicitly as such.  There are functions in Cartesian geometry that converge toward zero as a limit. To reach zero in Cartesian space however is to become ineffective. That is quite different from gaining increased potential, potential which can then be used subsequently in new differentiations. (See also the series of posts beginning here.)  Both the terms differentiationanddedifferentiation  were  brazenly borrowed  from the field of biology,  while the designations manifestandunmanifest  have been shamelessly appropriated from Kantian philosophy, though similar concepts also occur in different terminology in deBroglie-Bohmian pilot-wave theoryasexplicitandimplicit.

[3] In the figure of the cube on the lower left above there is a single Cartesian triad (point) identifying each vertex (V),  edge center (E),  face center (F),  and cube center C.  In the right figure, the  hybrid 6D/3D hypercube  at each vertex has one resident hexagram identifying it,  two resident hexagrams at each edge center, four resident hexagrams identifying each face center, and eight resident hexagrams identifying the hypercube center. This brings the total of hexagrams to 64, the number found in the I Ching and the total possible number (2⁶ = 64). This geometric progression of hexagram distribution,  through three Cartesian dimensions constitutes the mandalic form. It is entirely the result of composite dimension.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 283-

Beyond Descartes - Part 5

Reciprocation, Alternation, Decussation
Imaginary and Complex Numbers

(continued from here)

Previously in this blog a number of attempts have been made to explicate the Taoist number line and contrast it with the Western version of the same.  It is essential to do this and to do it flawlessly,  first because different systems of arithmetic result from the two, and secondly because the mandalic coordinate system is based on the former perspective while the Cartesian coordinate system is based on the latter.^[1]

What has been offered earlier has been accurate to a degree, a good first approximation. Here we intend to present a more definitive account of the Taoist number line,  describing both how it is similar to and how it differs from the  Western number line  used by Descartes in formation of his coordinate system.  This will inevitably transport us  well beyond that comfort zone offered by the more accessible three-dimensional cubic box that has heretofore engaged us.

Both Taoist and Western number lines observe directional locative division of their single dimension into two major partitions:  positive and negative for the West;  yinandyang for Taoism.^[2]  There the similarities essentially end.  From its earliest beginnings Taoism recognized a second directional divisioning in its number line, that of manifest/unmanifestorbeingandbecoming.^[3]  The West never did such.  As a result, some time later the West found it necessary to invent imaginary numbers.^[4][5]

Animaginary number is a complex number that can be written as a real numbermultiplied by theimaginary uniti, which is defined by its property i² = −1. [Wikipedia]

Descartes knew of these numbers but was not particularly fond of them.  It was he, in fact, who first used the term “imaginary” describing them in a derogatory sense. [Wikipedia]  The term “imaginary number” now just denotes a complex number with a real part equal to 0,  that is, a number of the form bi. A complex number where the real part is other than 0 is represented by the form a + bi.

In place of the complex plane, Taoism has (and always has had from time immemorial)  a plane of potentiality.  An explanation of this alternative plane was attempted earlier in this blog,  but it can likely be improved. This post has simply been a broad brushstrokes overview. In the following posts we will look more closely at the specifics involved.^[6]

(continuedhere)

Image (lower): A complex number can be visually represented as a pair of numbers (a, b) forming a vector on a diagram representing the complex plane. “Re” is the real axis, “Im” is the imaginary axis, and i is the imaginary unit which satisfies i² = −1. Wolfkeeper at English Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] The arithmetic system derived from the Taoist number line can perhaps best be understood as a  noumenal  one. It applies to the world of ideas rather than to our phenomenal world of the physical senses, but it may also apply to the real world, that is, the real real world which we can never fully access.

Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the physical senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable “thing-in-itself” (Ding an sich, which could also be rendered as “thing as such” or “thing per se”), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy. [Wikipedia]

[2] From the perspective of physics this involves a division into two major quanta of charge, negative and positive, which like yinandyang can be either complementary or opposing.  Like forces repel one another and unlike attract. This is the basis of electromagnetism, one of four forces of nature recognized by modern physics. But it is likely also the basis, though not fully recognized as such, of the strong and weak nuclear forces, possibly of the force of gravity as well. I would suspect that to be the case. The significant differences among the forces  (or force fields, the term physics now prefers to use)  lie mainly, as we shall see, in intricate twistings and turnings through various dimensions or directions that negative and positive charges undergo in particle interactions.

[3] It is this additional axis of probabilistic directional location, along with composite dimensioning, both of which are unique to mandalic geometry, that make it a geometry of spacetime,  in contrast to Descartes’ geometry which, in and of itself, is one of space alone. The inherent spatiotemporal dynamism that is characteristic of  mandalic coordinates  makes them altogether more relevant for descriptions of particle interactions than Cartesian coordinates, which often demand complicated external mathematical mechanisms to sufficiently enliven them to play even a partial descriptive role, however inadequate.

[4] In addition to their use in mathematics, complex numbers, once thought to be  "fictitious" and useless,  have found practical applications in many fields, including chemistry, biology, electrical engineering, statistics, economics,  and, most importantly perhaps, physics..

[5] The Italian mathematician Gerolamo Cardano is the first known to have introduced complex numbers. He called them “fictitious” during his attempts to find solutions to cubic equations in the 16th century.  At the time, such numbers were poorly understood,  consequently regarded by many as fictitious or useless as negative numbers and zero once were. Many other mathematicians were slow to adopt use of imaginary numbers, including Descartes, who referred to them in his La Géométrie, in which he introduced the term imaginary,  that was intended to be derogatory. Imaginary numbers were not widely accepted until the work of Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) and Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855).  Geometric interpretation of  complex numbers as points in a complex plane  was first stated by mathematician and cartographer Caspar Wessel in 1799. [Wikipedia]

[6] What I have called here the plane of potentiality occurs only implicitly in the Taoist I Ching but is fully developed in mandalic geometry. It may be related to  bicomplex numbers  or tessarines in abstract algebra, the existence of which I only just discovered. Unlike the quaternions first described by Hamilton in 1843, which extended the complex plane to three dimensions, but unfortunately are not commutative,  tesserines or bicomplex numbers  are hypercomplex numbers in a commutative,  associative  algebra over real numbers,  with two imaginary units (designated i and k). Reading further, I find the following fascinating remark,

The tessarines are now best known for their subalgebra of real tessarines t = w + y j, also called split-complex numbers, which express the parametrization of the unit hyperbola. [Wikipedia]

The rectangular hyperbola x2-y2 and its conjugate, having the same asymptotes. The Unit Hyperbola is blue, its conjugate is green, and the asymptotes are red. By Own work (Based on File:Drini-conjugatehyperbolas.png) [CC BY-SA 2.5],via Wikimedia Commons

Note to self:  Also investigate Cayley–Dickson constructionandzero divisor. Remember,  this is a work still in progress,  and if a  bona fide mathematician  believes division by zero is possible in some circumstances,  (as is avowed by mandalic geometry), I want to find out more about it.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 281-

Earlier to Later Heaven: Fugue VII Beyond Descartes - Part 2
A Different Zero

(continued from here)

Mandalic geometry has been formulated in such a manner as to be fully commensurate with Descartes’ coordinate system. Firstly, because it can be.  Beyond that,  because Descartes’ system is known throughout the world, and is endorsed by all conversant in disparate fields of science and mathematics. Moreover, the Cartesian coordinate system is a special case of the mandalic coordinate system,  bearing a relationship to it analogous to that which Newtonian mechanics does to quantum mechanics.

One of the fundamental differences lies in the way the two regard zero locations. Descartes, taking his cue from the Western number line, constructs a coordinate system which envisages a single common origin to all three dimensions, while maintaining between those dimensions a rigid uncompromising distinction. Mandalic geometry views dimension as primary rather than points, lines, or two or three dimensional figures. It does not regard dimensions as intrinsically separate in the manner in which they  exist and relate  to one another.  This allows for a far greater degree of flexibility of what we view as parts of the system, including the possibility of folding each into another,  through different dimensions as well as the same dimension.

For Descartes, zero is the empty location, the no man’s land where positive and negative vectors of each dimension invert or fail to invert.  A negative vector acting on a positive vector or another negative vector will cause inversion.  A positive vector, acting on a negative vector or another positive vector, will not. For mandalic geometry, zeros are that, but more. They are dimension interchange lanes,  and also locations of dimensional amplitudetransition.^[1]

Descartes, influenced still by the number line, proceeds to build a geometric universe based largely on scale. It is an imposing edifice nearly purely divergent,  constructed from three largely independent linear axes of evolutionary zeal.  Taoist cosmology and mandalic coordinates equally eschew an impressive but mundane number line in pursuance of complex twisting and intertwining of parts evolved on the underlying principles of modularity, repetition, reflection, relationship and recursion.^[2]

These are two very different universes of logic.  Descartes’ approach leads to a description of space as being homogenous, isotropic, and fixed while that of mandalic geometry leads alternatively to a spacetime which is inhomogeneous, anisotropic and dynamically variable.^[3] For Descartes space is a background arena,  the theater in which all events transpire.^[4] For mandalic geometry,  space-time is foreground and background both. It is the sole ground which defines the nature of reality.

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] The first,  dimensional interchanges,  occur in the Cartesian coordinate system but are generally neither recognized nor treated as such. Dimensional amplitude transition locations do not occur in Cartesian coordinates,  nor are they found in the simple 3D trigram Cartesian equivalent,  reproduced in the upper diagram above, as they are a manifestation only of compositing of two or more dimensions. They are attributes of all hybrid composite dimensional systems,  for our purposes here, either the 6D/3D hybrid mandalic system of hexagrams,  the 4D/2D hybrid mandalic system of tetragrams,  or the 2D/1D hybrid mandalic system of bigrams.

[2] An important consequence here is that Descartes’ number line-based axes each contain a single zero. When mandalic coordinates are scaled up beyond the basic modular unit, every even number maintains all characteristics of the initial zero, including, most significantly, its multipotentiality. This is a basic axiomatic result of the intermingling, sharing nature of mandalic structure.

[3] It is this variability and dynamism of mandalic coordinates that make the method potentially suitable to mappings of subatomic particles as these are similarly variable and dynamic,  sharing importantly also the ability of exchanges / interchanges among their diverse numbers.

[4] Witness for example how Descartes exploits his newly formed coordinate system to stage, what was then, a cutting-edge geometric exposition of algebra, now referred to as analytic geometry. Mandalic geometry employs coordinates which are pre-invested with the ability to directly impart information regarding spatial transmutations themselves, without requirement of any intermediary.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering. To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x + 1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 278-

Earlier to Later Heaven: Fugue VI Beyond Descartes - Part 1

(continued from here)

In this post we take a short detour within our current central topic, that of relationship of Earlier Heaven and Later Heaven arrangements of the trigrams. The new material included here grew out of ruminations on the aforesaid primary topic though,  and is actually not so much a detour as a preparing the way for what I hope will be the eventual solution of our problem at hand.

Mandalic geometry, as we’ve seen, is fully commensurate with the coordinate system of Descartes, but its principal forebears lie elsewhere. It is derived largely from Taoist and pre-Taoist thought structures, most importantly the I Ching,  the earliest strata of which were formed before the separation of rational and irrational thought in the history of human cognition. As a result it is capable of far exceeding the possibilities of the Cartesian coordinate system, a product of the Enlightenment and Age of Rationalism. It offers geometry the possibility of a structural fluidity and a functional variability that Cartesian geometry lacks.^[1]

From the very beginning of this project I’ve been much puzzled by the lack in traditional Chinese thought  of a symbol corresponding to the zero of the Western number line and number theory.^[2] Traditional Asian thought does not uniformly lack a zero symbol.^[3] And yet the I Ching and Taoism manage well enough without one, electing to base their numerical relationships instead entirely on combinatorics involving permutations of yinandyang – what we in the West call  negativeandpositive – through multiple dimensions. It is an entirely different perspective arising out of a very different worldview.^[4]

What Taoism invented in the process was a unique,  thoroughly self-consistent brilliant system of logic/geometry/combinatorics which has been masquerading, all these many centuries,  as “just a method of divination.”^[5]  In essence, Chinese thought invented a discrete number system and geometry, one based on vectors rather than scalars, a vector geometry that can be extrapolated to any desired number of dimensions. The I Ching settles for just six,  the first whole number multiple of three. That is complicated enough.^[6][7]

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] For one example of the advantages such variability and fluidity offer, in this particular case in creating  dynamic,  phase-shifting forms of nanomaterials,  see here.

[2] For a short history of the concept of zeroseeWho Invented Zero?

[3] The West, after all, derived its zero symbol ultimately via India.

[4] One might well speculate whether the significant root difference in world view between traditional Indian and Chinese thought lay in the fact that Indian mathematicians could have created a Zero out of nothingness (Śūnyatā),  a key term in Mahayana Buddhism and also some schools of Hindu philosophy while Taoist thought did not include a concept of nothingness. Instead it conceived of a formlessness prior to manifestation. In Taoist cosmology Taiji is a term for the “Supreme Ultimate” state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential,  the oneness before duality,  from which  yinandyang  originate.  So it might be that lacking a concept of nothingness forestalled invention of a zero symbol.  Still, it also allowed creation of an original,  unique holistic philosophy of reality, found perhaps nowhere else.

[5] The Russian philosopher, mathematician and authorPeter D. Ouspensky (1878-1947)  relates an apocryphal legend regarding the origin of the Tarot,  the moral of which has significance also to the history of the I Ching.

[6] In its emphasis on vector analysis and primacy of dimension the philosophy which underlies the I Ching and mandalic geometry  shares some characteristics of Clifford algebra.

[7] One of the important things with respect to physics I hope to show with mandalic geometry is that it is possible to construct an integrated geometrical / logical system which is self-sufficient and self-consistent, capable of modeling interactions of subatomic particles of the Standard Model and then some.  This goal is,  I believe,  approximated in mandalic geometry by meticulous coupling of the methodologies of composite dimension and trigram toggling,  although it quickly becomes apparent that a system based upon what is after all a relatively small number of dimensions - six in the case in point - becomes vastly complex and difficult to follow, at least initially.  One can’t help wondering how physics will be able to correlate all the intricate data resulting from its countless particle accelerator collisions and combine it into a consistent whole without some very fancy mental acrobatics on the part of theoretical physicists.  Without a suitable logical scaffold that might take an inordinately long time to achieve.

© 2015 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering. To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x + 1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 277-

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - III

(continued from here)

My objection to the imaginary dimension is not that we cannot see it.  Our senses cannot identify probable dimensions either, at least not in the visually compelling manner they can the three Cartesian dimensions. The question here is not whether imaginary numbers are mathematically true. How could they not be? The cards were stacked in their favor. They were defined in such a manner, – consistently and based on axioms long accepted valid, – that they are necessarily mathematically true. There’s a word for that sort of thing. –The word is  tautological.– No,  the decisive question is whether imaginary numbers apply to the real world; whether they are scientifically true, and whether physicists can truly rely on them to give empirically verifiable results with maps that accurately reproduce mechanisms actually used in nature.^[1]

The geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers was established as a belief system using the Cartesian line extending from  -1,0,0  through the origin  0,0,0 to 1,0,0  as the sole real axis left standing in the complex plane. In 1843,  William Rowan Hamilton introduced two additional axes in a quaternion coordinate system.  The new jandk axes,  similar to the i axis, encode coordinates of imaginary dimensions.  So the complex plane has one real axis, one imaginary; the quaternion system, three imaginary axes, one real, to accomplish which though involved loss of commutative multiplication. The mandalic coordinate system has three real axes upon which are superimposed six probable axes. It is both fully commensurate with the Cartesian system of real numbers  and  fully commutative for all operations throughout all dimensions as well.^[2]

All of these coordinate systems have a central origin point which all other points use as a locus of reference to allow clarity and consistency in determination of location.  The  mandalic coordinate system  is unique in that this point of origin is not a  null point of emptiness as in all the other locative systems,  but  a point of effulgence.  In that location  where occur Descartes’ triple zero triad (0.0.0) and the complex plane’s real zero plus imaginary zero (ax=0,bi=0), we find eight related hexagrams, all having neutral charge density,  each of these consisting of  inverse trigrams  with corresponding Lines of opposite charge, canceling one another out. These eight hexagrams are the only hexagrams out of sixty-four total possessing both of these characteristics.^[3]

So let’s begin now to plot the points of the mandalic coordinate system with  the view  of comparing its  dimensions and points  with  those of the complex plane.^[4]  The eight  centrally located hexagrams  all refer to  and are commensurate with the Cartesian triad (0,0,0). In a sense they can be considered eight  alternative possible states  which can  exist in this locale at different times. These are hybrid forms of the four complementary pair of hexagrams found at antipodal vertices of the mandalic cube.  The eight vertex hexagrams are those with upper and lower trigrams identical. This can occur nowhere else in the mandalic cube because there are only eight trigrams.^[5]

From the origin multiple probability waves of dimension radiate out toward the  central points of the faces of the cube,  where these divergent force fields rendezvous and interact with reciprocal forces returning from the eight vertices at the periphery. converging toward the origin.  Each of these points at the six face centers  are  common intersections  of another eight particulate states or force fields analogous to the origin point except that four originate within this basic mandalic module and four without in an adjacent tangential module. Each of the six face centers then is host to four internal resident hexagrams which  share the point in some manner, time-sharing or other. The end result is the same regardless, probabilistic expression of  characteristic form and function.  There is a possibility that this distribution of points and vectors  could be or give rise to a geometric interpretation of the Schrödinger equation,  the fundamental equation of physics for describing quantum mechanical behavior. Okay, that’s clearly a wild claim, but in the event you were dozing off you should now be fully awake and paying attention.

The vectors connecting centers of opposite faces of an ordinary cube through the cube center or origin of the Cartesian coordinate system are at 180° to each other forming the three axes of the system corresponding to the number of dimensions.  The mandalic cube has 24 such axes, eight of which accompany each Cartesian axis thereby shaping a hybrid 6D/3D coordinate system. Each face center then hosts internally four hexagrams formed by  hybridization of trigrams  in  opposite vertices  of diagonals of that cube face,  taking one trigram  (upper or lower)  from one vertex and the other trigram (lower or upper) from the other vertex. This means that a face of the mandalic cube has eight diagonals, all intersecting at the face center, whereas a face of the ordinary cube has only two.^[6]

The circle in the center of this figure is intended to indicate that the two pairs of antipodal hexagrams at this central point of the cube face rotate through 90° four times consecutively to complete a 360° revolution. But I am describing the situation here in terms of revolution only to show an analogy to imaginary numbers.  The actual mechanisms involved can be better characterized as inversions (reflections through a point),  and the bottom line here is that for each diagonal of a square, the corresponding mandalic square has  a possibility of 4 diagonals;  for each diagonal of a cube,  the corresponding mandalic cube has a possibility of 8 diagonals. For computer science, such a multiplicity of possibilities offers a greater number of logic gates in the same computing space and the prospect of achieving quantum computing sooner than would be otherwise likely.^[7]

Similarly, the twelve edge centers of the ordinary cube host a single Cartesian point,  but the superposed mandalic cube hosts two hexagrams at the same point. These two hexagrams are always inverse hybrids of the two vertex hexagrams of the particular edge.  For example,  the edge with vertices  WIND over WIND  and  HEAVEN over HEAVEN  has as the two hybrid hexagrams  at the  center point  of the edge  WIND over HEAVEN  and HEAVEN over WIND. Since the two vertices of concern here connect with one another  via  the horizontal x-dimension,  the two hybrids  differ from the parents and one another only in Lines 1 and 4 which correspond to this dimension.  The other four Lines encode the y- amd z-dimensions, therefore remain unchanged during all transformations undergone in the case illustrated here.^[8]

This post began as a description of the structure of the mandalic coordinate system and how it differs from those of the complex plane and quaternions.  In the composition,  it became also  a passable introduction to the method of  composite dimension.  Additional references to the way composite dimension works  can be found scattered throughout this blog and Hexagramium Organum.  Basically the resulting construction can be thought of as a  tensegrity structure,  the integrity of which is maintained by opposing forces in equilibrium throughout, which operate continually and never fail,  a feat only nature is capable of.  We are though permitted to map the process  if we can manage to get past our obsession with  and addiction to the imaginary and complex numbers and quaternions.^[9]

In our next session we’ll flesh out probable dimension a bit more with some illustrative examples. And possibly try putting some lipstick on that PIG (Presumably Imaginary Garbage) to see if it helps any.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] For more on this theme,  regarding quaternions,  see Footnote [1]  here. My own view is that imaginary numbers, complex plane and quaternions are artificial devices, invented by rational man, and not found in nature.  Though having limited practical use in  representation of rotations  in  ordinary space they have no legitimate application to quantum spaces,  nor do they have any substantive or requisite relation to square root, beyond their fortuitous origin in the Rationalists’ dissection and codification of square root historically, but that part of the saga was thoroughly misguided.   We wuz bamboozled.  Why persist in this folly? Look carefully without preconception and you’ll see this emperor’s finery is wanting. It is not imperative to use imaginary numbers to represent rotation in a plane. There are other, better ways to achieve the same. One would be to use sin and cos functions of trigonometry which periodically repeat every 360°.  (Read more about trigonometric functions here.)  Another approach would be to use polar coordinates.

[SOURCE]

A quaternion, on the other hand,  is a four-element vector composed of a single real element and three complex elements. It can be used to encode any rotation in a  3D coordinate system.  There are other ways to accomplish the same, but the quaternion approach offers some advantages over these.  For our purposes here what needs to be understood is that mandalic coordinates encode a hybrid 6D/3D discretized space. Quaternions are applicable only to continuous three-dimensional space.  Ultimately,  the two reside in different worlds and can’t be validly compared. The important point here is that each has its own appropriate domain of judicious application. Quaternions can be usefully and appropriately applied to rotations in ordinary three-dimensional space, but not to locations or changes of location in quantum space.  For description of such discrete spaces, mandalic coordinates are more appropriate, and their mechanism of action isn’t rotation but inversion (reflection through a point.) Only we’re not speaking here about inversion in Euclidean space, which is continuous, but in discrete space, a kind of quasi-Boolean space,  a higher-dimensional digital space  (grid or lattice space). In the case of an electron this would involve an instantaneous jump from one electron orbital to another.

[2] I think another laudatory feature of mandalic coordinates is the fact that they are based on a thought system that originated in human prehistory, the logic of the primal I Ching. The earliest strata of this monumental work are actually a compendium of combinatorics and a treatise on transformations,  unrivaled until modern times, one of the greatest intellectual achievements of humankind of any Age.  Yet its true significance is overlooked by most scholars, sinologists among them.  One of the very few intellectuals in the West who knew its true worth and spoke openly to the fact, likely at no small risk to his professional standing, was Carl Jung, the great 20th century psychologist and philosopher.

It is of relevance to note here that all the coordinate systems mentioned are, significantly,  belief systems of a sort.  The mandalic coordinate system  goes beyond the others though,  in that it is based on a still more extensive thought system, as the primal I Ching encompasses an entire cultural worldview.  The question of which,  if any,  of these coordinate systems actually applies to the natural order is one for science, particularly physics and chemistry, to resolve.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that neither the complex plane nor quaternions refer to any dimensions beyond the ordinary three, at least not in the manner of their current common usage.  They are simply alternative ways of viewing and manipulating the two- and three-dimensions described by Euclid and Descartes. In this sense they are little different from  polar coordinatesortrigonometry  in what they are attempting to depict.  Yes, quaternions apply to three dimensions, while polar coordinates and trigonometry deal with only two.  But then there is the method of  Euler angles  which describes orientation of a rigid body in three dimensions and can substitute for quaternions in practical applications.

A mandalic coordinate system, on the other hand, uniquely introduces entirely new features in its composite potential dimensions and probable numbers which I think have not been encountered heretofore. These innovations do in fact bring with them  true extra dimensions beyond the customary three  and also the novel concept of dimensional amplitudes.  Of additional importance is the fact that the mandalic method relates not to rotation of rigid bodies,  but to interchangeability and holomalleability of parts  by means of inversions through all the dimensions encompassed, a feature likely to make it useful for explorations and descriptions of particle interactions of quantum mechanics.  Because the six extra dimensions of mandalic geometry may, in some manner, relate to the six extra dimensions of the 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, mandalic geometry might equally be of value in string theoryandsuperstring theory.

Itis possible to use mandalic coordinates to describe rotations of rigid bodies in three dimensions,  certainly,  as inversions can mimic rotations, but this is not their most appropriate usage. It is overkill of a sort. They are capable of so much more and this particular use is a degenerate one in the larger scheme of things.

[3] This can be likened to a quark/gluon soup.  It is a unique and very special state of affairs that occurs here. Physicists take note. Don’t let any small-minded pure mathematicians  dissuade you from the truth.  They will likely write all this off as “sacred geometry.” Which it is, of course, but also much more.  Hexagram superpositions  and  stepwise dimensional transitions  of the mandalic coordinate system could hold critical clues  to  quantum entanglement and quantum gravity. My apologies to those mathematicians able to see beyond the tip of their noses. I was not at all referring to you here.

[4] Hopefully also with dimensions and points of the quaternion coordinate system once I understand the concepts involved better than I do currently. It should meanwhile be underscored that full comprehension of quaternions is not required to be able to identify some of their more glaring inadequacies.

[5] In speaking of  "existing at the same locale at different times"  I need to remind the reader and myself as well that we are talking here about  particles or other subatomic entities that are moving at or near the speed of light,- - -so very fast indeed. If we possessed an instrument that allowed us direct observation of these events,  our biologic visual equipment  would not permit us to distinguish the various changes taking place. Remember that thirty frames a second of film produces  the illusion of motion.  Now consider what  thirty thousand frames  a second  of  repetitive action  would do.  I think it would produce  the illusion of continuity or standing still with no changes apparent to our antediluvian senses.

[6] Each antipodal pair has four different possible ways of traversing the face center.  Similarly,  the mandalic cube has  thirty-two diagonals  because there are eight alternative paths by which an antipodal pair might traverse the cube center. This just begins to hint at the tremendous number of  transformational paths  the mandalic cube is able to represent, and it also explains why I refer to dimensions involved as  potentialorprobable dimensions  and planes so formed as probable planes.  All of this is related to quantum field theory (QFT), but that is a topic of considerable complexity which we will reserve for another day.

[7] One advantageous way of looking at this is to see that the probabilistic nature of the mandalic coordinate system in a sense exchanges bits for qubits and super-qubits through creation of different levels of logic gates that I have referred to elsewhere as different amplitudes of dimension.

[8] Recall that the Lines of a hexagram are numbered 1 to 6, bottom to top. Lines 1 and 4 correspond to, and together encode, the Cartesian x-dimension. When both are yang (+),  application of the method of  composite dimension results in the Cartesian value  +1;  when both yin (-),  the Cartesian value  -1. When either Line 1 or Line 4 is yang (+) but not both (Boole’s exclusive OR) the result is one of two possible  zero formations  by destructive interference. Both of these correspond to (and either encodes) the single Cartesian zero (0). Similarly hexagram Lines 2 and 5 correspond to and encode the Cartesian y-dimension; Lines 3 ane 6, the Cartesian z-dimension. This outline includes all 9 dimensions of the hybrid  6D/3D coordinate system:  3 real dimensions and the 6 corresponding probable dimensions. No imaginary dimensions are used; no complex plane; no quaternions. And no rotations. This coordinate system is based entirely on inversion (reflection through a point)  and on constructive or destructive interference. Those are the two principal mechanisms of composite dimension.

[9] The process as mapped here is an ideal one.  In the real world errors do occur from time to time. Such errors are an essential and necessary aspect of evolutionary process. Without error, no change. And by implication, likely no continuity for long either, due to external damaging and incapacitating factors that a natural world devoid of error never learned to overcome.  Errors are the stepping stones of evolution, of both biological and physical varieties.

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - II

(continued from here)

When a geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers was at last proposed,  long after they were invented,  it was as though accomplished by central committee. The upshot was easily enough understood but also simplistic. In broad brushstroke here is what seems to have gone down.

The 3 dimensions of Descartes’ coordinate system-a number already deficient from the perspective of mandalic geometry-were reduced to just one.  Of the real number axes then  only the x-axis remained.  This meant from the get-go  that  any  geometric figure that ensued  could encompass only linearity in terms of real numbers and dimensions.  It was applicable only to a line segment,  so the complex plane that resulted  could describe just one real dimension and one imaginary dimension.  It consecrated the number line in a single dimension, to exclusion of its proper habitation in two others besides. Strike one for imaginary numbers.^[1]

With that as background let’s look now at the rotations described by this geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in the context of the complex plane.

i in the complex or cartesian plane. Real numbers lie on the horizontal axis, and imaginary numbers lie on the vertical axis By Loadmaster (David R. Tribble) (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

The number 1 is the multiplicative identity element for real numbers and the number -1  is the  reflection inversion element  for real numbers.  Put another way, the number one times any number equals that number;  the number -1 times any number is  a negative of that number  or  the inverse number through a reference point, usually taken as zero. Multiplying by 1 then leaves 1, -1, i and -i all unchanged. Multiplying by -1  changes  -1 to 1, 1 to -1, i to -i, and -i to i.  In terms of rotations in the complex plane, these changes  all involve a rotation through 180 degrees.  Multiplication of the number 1 by i changes it to i; i by i changes it to -1; -1 by i to -i; and -i by i to 1.  These changes all involve rotations through 90 degrees.  And finally, multiplication of 1 by -i changes it to -i; -i by -i changes it to -1; -1 by -i to i; and i by -i to 1: all changes involving rotations through -90 degrees.

The figure below shows another way to interpret these rotations that amounts to the same tbing: i¹ = i; i² =-1; i³ = -i; i⁴ = 1.  Click to enlarge.

Four numbers on the real line multiplied by integer powers of the imaginary unit, which corresponds to rotations by multiples of the right angle. By Keφr [CC0],via Wikimedia Commons

I think a committee of some sort must have come up with this resplendent plan. For certain it was an Academy of Mathematics and Sciences that endorsed and enthroned it. All bow to central authority.

I had planned to include a comparison of imaginary numbers and probable numbers in this post as well but because that is a long discussion itself, it will have to wait till the next post.  I might add it should prove well worth the wait.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Mathematician William Rowan Hamilton  subsequently addressed this deficiency in 1843 with his  quaternions,  a  number system  that  extends the complex numbers to three-dimensional space.  Hamilton defined a quaternion as the quotient of two directed lines in a three-dimensional space  or,  in other words, as the quotient of two vectors.  This complicated matters even more by introducing a non-commutative multiplication operation to the system, though to be fair the quaternion coordinate system has found some useful applications mainly for calculations involving 3-dimensional rotations,  as in 3-dimensional computer graphics,computer vision, and crystallographic texture analysis. Still it becomes problematic when theoretical physics attempts use of quaternions in calculations pertaining to  atomic and subatomic spaces  where rotations do not actually take place.  The conclusion to be drawn here is that quaternions can be usefully,  if somewhat clumsily,  applied to 3-dimensional macro-spaces but are inapproriate for accurate description of higher dimensional spaces. What is here unfortunate and misleading  is that quaternions apparently do describe outcomes of events in the quantum realm to some partial degree,  if not the mechanisms of the events themselves.  Physicists would not long tolerate them were that not so.

[ADDENDUM (24 APRIL, 2016)
Since writing this I’ve learned that quaternions are not currently used in quantum physics nor were they ever, to any great degree, in the past.]

In other words, sometimes  the right answer  can be reached by a wrong method. In the case under discussion here, we should note that it is possible for a rotation to mimic inversion (reflection through a point). A 90° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion in a single plane through an edge of a square, and a 180° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion through a diagonal of a square  or  two successive inversions  through  two perpendicular edges of a square.  A 180° rotation in three dimensions  can mimic three inversions through three mutually perpendicular edges of a square;  a combination of  one inversion through a diagonal of a square  and another through an edge perpendicular to the plane of the first inversion;  or a single inversion through a diagonal of the cube. Subatomic paricles exist as discrete or quantized entities and would follow such methods of transformation rather than rotations through a continuous space.  Of course, transformations involving a diagonal would require more transformative energy than one involving a single edge.

Such patterns of relationship and transformation could no doubt be described in terms of quantum states and quantum numbers without too much difficulty by a knowledgeable theoretical physicist.  Surely doing so could be no more difficult than using quaternions,  which may give a correct answer while also misleading and limiting knowledge of the the true workings of the quantum realm by using an incorrect mechanism, one non-commutative to boot. Nature doesn’t approve of hat tricks like that.