#dimensional numbers

A Recap of Some Important Ideas Regarding Mandalic Geometry

1. Mandalic geometry (MG) is a new kind of mathematical methodology based on a worldview having roots that predate written history.
2. It is a discrete geometry which currently consists of just a coordinate system but can be extended as Descartes did his to encompass an entire analytic geometry.
3. Mandalic geometry introduces and is based on a new number system, the probable number system (or probabilistic number system.)
4. Just as the complex number system combines real numbers and imaginary numbers and is more robust than either, the probable number system combines real numbers and probable numbers and is more robust than either.
5. The probable number system is also more robust than the complex number system. Complex numbers combine real numbers with imaginary numbers to form the single complex plane. Composite numbers combine real numbers with probable numbers to form six interdependent composite planes.
6. Axiomatic to the system is the contention that numbers can exist in different dimensions and therefore can be described as being of some particular dimension. Numbers are always viewed and treated within context of a stated dimension.
7. Probable numbers are an extension of the real numbers to higher dimensions and are independent of imaginary and complex numbers.
8. Mandalic geometry does not admit the existence of square root of -1 in the real world other than in mathematics invented by the human mind. In place of square root of negative numbers, MG introduces the new concept of contra-square root. In brief this involves substitution of a combination form of interactive two-dimensional analogues of +1 and -1 for -1 as currently used in imaginary number contexts. This is more fully explained elsewhere in the blog.
9. Put another way, in place of imaginary numbers MG posits the existence of probable numbers. These can be considered the result of what is essentially wavelike interactions of higher dimensional numbers to form the real numbers we know in the 3-dimensional world.
10. Higher dimensional numbers can interact with one another through wavelike constructive and destructive interference to generate ordinary
    3-dimensional numbers. Numbers are not viewed as constants to be acted upon as Descartes so views them but rather as being themselves active and changeable. They participate in process. This feature alone enables composite numbers to mediate between mathematics and physics better than either real or complex numbers can.
11. The interactions of higher dimensional numbers in the process of dimensional compositing to yield 3-dimensional numbers is a function of time and therefore probabilistic from our limited ordinary point of view. From this perspective, certain probablity distributions are the result of dimensional compositing and the consequent mandalic form. MG considers the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics likely to be based on such.
12. The probabilistic nature in three dimensions of what are here called probable numbers is what gives rise to the mandalic form which can in a sense be considered the 3-dimensional evolution of 6-dimensional numbers from protean representations through progressive differentiation of form to the stage of maximal differentiation and back again to the undifferentiated state of greatest probability.
13. The mandalic form has a geometric progression of its line structures in the three Euclidean/Cartesian dimensions such that series of numbers of the form 1:2:1, 2:4:2, and 4:8:4 occur throughout all of those dimensions when a hybrid 6D/3D coordinate system results from performing 2:1 compositing from six to three dimensions.
14. Mandalic geometry views points and lines in three dimensions as convenient fictions that exist only as evanescent probabilistic concurrences of analogous entities in higher dimensions.
15. The probabilistic nature of MG makes it ideal for investigations and descriptions of quantum mechanics.
16. The exclusion of imaginary and complex numbers and substitution of probable and composite numbers which are easily reducible to ordinary algebraic/arithmetic forms and can be worked with using the same methods as those mathematical disciplines makes MG more utilitarian and appropriate to application to quantum mechanics than are complex numbers. All operations performed are based on simple inversion (reflection through a point) and on real numbers, maintaining all the usual rules and properties of ordinary arithmetic, including commutativity (which quaternions fail to preserve.)
17. MG is currently based on discrete numbers and is concerned mainly with the positive and negative integers. Fractions and irrational numbers are not excluded from the system but do not currently play a significant role. Future incarnations of MG will extend it outward beyond the unit vector cube to tile the geometric universe and inward to encompass fractional entities and fractals.
18. It is a hybrid geometry resulting from superposition of 6-dimensional numbers and 3-dimensional numbers and is fully commensurate with
    3-dimensional Cartesian geometry.
19. It describes a linear mapping of two dimensions to one dimension which forms a field of probable numbers over the field of real numbers, analogous to the field of complex numbers but constructed on a different principle and extending to the real numbers in all three Cartesian dimensions rather than just one. The two independent higher dimensions so mapped become dependent variables in the mandalic “line” that results from the compositing of the two. This is expressed, in a sense, as two sine waves 180 degrees out of phase that mutually intersect a common Cartesian axis (x,y or z) at Cartesian +1 and -1 and are maximally separated at Cartesian 0.
20. This phase difference produces wave interference of both constructive and destructive varieties. So-called “points” or “particles” they represent come into existence only discretely and intermittently at Cartesian -1, +1, and 0, the locations of intersection or confluence (-1 and +1) and maximum separation, the maxima/minima of the two entangled sine waves that occur at Cartesian 0.
21. As the unit vector cube corresponds to and describes only half of each of the two sine waves, two unit vector cubes are required for a full cycle. Mandalic geometry as currently formulated with a single unit cube then needs to be extended to at least two of these. Extension in both directions of all three Cartesian axes is easily accomplished by repeatedly inverting the current single unit vector cube.
22. This means that mandalic coordinates alternate positive and negative on both sides of Cartesian 0. The extensions can be continued to infinity in both directions, but not, properly speaking, positive and negative infinity since the manner of extension has created what is essentially a convention-free coordinate system which consists of repeated units of consecutively inverted unit vector cubes in which positive and negative alternate ad infinitum and every Cartesian even-numbered coordinate becomes a “zero equivalent” , or better, a neo-zero in this extended mandalic coordinate system.
23. The resulting geometry is a dynamic one with “points”, “lines”, and “planes” coming into and passing out of existence intermittently in a time-sharing of corresponding Cartesian entities. It “persists” in time and space by means of continuous creation, destruction and re-creation and is “held together” by “force fields” produced and maintained by means of tensegrity which is based ultimately on dimension and number, and by a process that.might best be described as a “weaving of reality” with warp and woof.
24. The 2:1 compositing of dimension involved creates a new number system the members of which are like the real integers in all ways except that they map differently to a Cartesian geometric space. Whereas Decartes assumes that one number maps to one point, MG does not make this assumption which is just an unproved axiom that Descartes makes implicit use of.
25. The method of dimensional compositing automatically results in a mandalic formation having a geometric progression through three Euclidean/Cartesian dimensions from periphery to center (origin).
26. Currently MG is limited to a description of unit vectors in a composite hybrid 6D/3D geometry but can be extended to include all scalar values and any even number of dimensions.
27. The notation system used is borrowed from Taoism and foreign to most Western mathematicians. It is, however, basically equivalent to Cartesian coordinate signs (yin=minus; yang=plus); ordered pairs (=bigrams); and ordered triads (=trigrams); and extends these concepts to include ordered quads (=tetragrams) and ordered sextuplets (=hexagrams).
28. This notation system is used rather than the usual Cartesian notation because it is much easier for the mind to manipulate dimensional numbers using it. It takes only a little practice to become accustomed to using it. Without its use, understanding of mandalic geometry becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible.
29. As MG views a point as a concurrence of various different dimensions, it interprets Cartesian ordered pairs and triads, and their extensions to higher dimensions, as tensors and treats them as such. This makes it possible to apply operations of addition and multiplication to these mathematical entities in a manner analogous to the way William Rowan Hamilton applied these operations to complex numbers by way of what he called “algebraic couples”.
30. The probabilistic mandalic form that is the hallmark of MG conveys and necessitates a new interpretation of zero(0). In MG “zero” is not the empty null that it is in Cartesian geometry and Western mathematics generally, but rather a fount of being, so to speak, and a logic gate spanning dimensions. Wherever a zero occurs in Cartesian coordinates two Cartesian-equivalent forms are found in mandalic coordinates. So in the mandalic cube based on unit vectors the twelve edge centers, having a single Cartesian zero, have two Cartesian-equivalent forms (hexagrams); the six face centers, having two Cartesian zeros, have four Cartesian-equivalent forms; and the single cube center, the Cartesian origin point with three zeros, has eight Cartesian-equivalent forms.
31. Thisalternative zero and the mandalic structure it inhabits force the creation of four different amplitudes of dimension in the 6-dimensional unit vector cube. These are not independent but all mutually dependent and holo-interactive within the composite 6D/3D coordinate system. All of this occurs in a context reminiscent of the one inhabited by nuclear particles. The mapping proposed by MG may in fact model the elementary force fields, electromagnetism and quantum chromodynamics. It suggests a possible mechanism for formation of the state of matter known as a quark-gluon plasma. Hidden within it may even be the secret of quantum gravity.

© 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 312-

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 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 - I

Imaginary numbers arose in the history of mathematics as a result of misunderstanding the dimensional character of numbers.  There was a failure to acknowledge that numbers exist in a context of dimension. This has earlier been addressed at length.^[1]  Simply put, numbers exist always in a particular dimensional context.  Square numbers pertain to a context of two dimensions and therefore to a plane,  not a line.  Square roots then ought justly reference a two-dimensional geometrical context rather than the linear one mathematics has maintained ever since mathematicians of the Age of Enlightenment decreed it so.  Square roots contrary to the way mathematics would have it can neither exist in nor be found in any single line segment,  because they do not originate in the number line but in the two-dimensional square.

Algebra, not geometry, provided the breeding ground for imaginary numbers.  They were given a geometric interpretation as an afterthought only, long after the fact of their invention. Rationalist algebraists, feeling compelled to give meaning to equations of the form b² = -4 came up with the fantastic notion of imaginary numbers. Only indirectly did these grow out of nature, by way of minds of men obsessed with reason.^[2]

Descartes knew of the recently introduced square roots of negative numbers. He thought them preposterous and was first to refer to the new numbers by the mocking name imaginary, a label which stuck and which continues to inform posterity of the exact manner in which he viewed the oddities.  It is one of the ironies of history that when at last a geometrical interpretation of square root of negative numbers was offered it involved swallowing up Descartes’ own y-axis. Poetic justice? Or ultimate folly?

Had the essential dimensional nature of numbers been recognized there would have been no need to inquire what the square root of -1 was. It would have been clear that there was no square root of -1 nor any need for such as +1 also has no square root.  As linear numbers,  neither -1 nor +1 can legitimately be said to have a square root.  Both, though, have two-dimensional analogues and these do have square roots, not recognized as such unfortunately by the mathematics hegemony.^[3]

In the next post we will look at a comparison between imaginary numbers,  which were formulated in accordance with this misconstrual about how numbers relate to dimensions,  and probable numbers which grow organically out of a consideration of how numbers and dimensions actually relate to one another in nature.^[4]  The first of these approaches can be thought of as rational planning by a central authority; the second, as the holistic manner in which nature attends to everything, all at once, and without rational forethought.

(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] See the series of about nine posts that begins here.

[2] The Rationalists missed here a golden opportunity to relate number and dimension by defining square root much too narrowly. They seem to have been so mesmerized by their algebraic equations that they failed to pursue the search into deeper significance pertaining to essential linkages between dimension and number that intuition and imagination might have bestowed.

[3] As Shakespeare correctly pointed out, a rose by any name would smell as sweet. Plus one times plus one certainly equals plus one but that has nothing to do with actual square root really, just with algebraic linear multiplication.  Note has often been made in these pages of the difference between mathematical truth and scientific truth. Whereas mathematics demands only adherence to its axioms and consistency,  science requires empirical proof.  Mathematics defined square root in a certain manner centuries ago, and has since been devoutly consistent in its adherence to that definition.  In so doing it has preserved a cherished doctrine of mathematical truth, as though in formaldehyde.  It has also for many centuries contrived to be consistently scientifically incorrect.  The problem lies in the fact it has converted physicists and near everyone else to its own insular worldview.

[4] For an early discussion of the probable plane, potential dimensions, and probable numbers see here.

Beyond Taoism - Part 5
A Vector-based Probabilistic
Number System
Part II

(continued from here)

Taoism and the primordial I Chingare in agreement that temporal changes have two different aspects: sequent and cyclic.  Western thought in general follows suit. The I Ching differs from the other two in asserting that  the direction of change - for both sequent and cyclic change - is fully reversible,  with the proviso  that sufficiently small units of measurement are involved.^[1]  The probability that reversal can be achieved  diminishes proportionately to the magnitude of change that has taken place.^[2]

Taoist appropriation of bigrams and trigrams of the I Ching to model such phenomena as change of seasons and phases of the moon  is plausible if not quite legitimate. The natural phenomena so modeled are macroscopic and vary continuouslyandinexorably throughout an ever-repeating cyclic spectrum. And there’s the rub.

As they occur and function in the I Ching bigrams and trigrams are dicontinuous discrete elements,  formed by other similarly discontinuous discretized entities,  and they follow evolutionary courses which are most often nonrepetitive. So the Taoist usage is misleading at best, annihilative at worst. Unfortunately, as the I Ching itself evolved through centuries of commentaries and reinterpretations,  it became  ever more contaminated and tainted by these Taoist corruptions of meaning, at the same time that it was being inundated by  Confucian sociological and ethical reworkings.  What we have today is an amalgam, the various parts of which do not sit well with one another.^[3]

Though it may in part be hyperbole to prove a point,  the stark difference between the two approaches,  that of Taoism and that of the I Ching, is epitomized by comparison of the Taoist diagram of the cycle of seasons with diagrams at the top and bottom of the page,  which are based on  the  number,  logic,  and coordinate systems of   The Book of Changes.^[4] The increased complexity of the latter diagrams should not prove a stumbling block, as they can be readily understood in time with focus and attention to detail.  The  important take-away  for now is that in the I Ching bigrams  exist within a larger dimensional context  than the Taoist diagram avows,  and this context makes all their interactions more variable,  conditional,  and complex. As well, the same can be said of trigrams and hexagrams.

One of the more important aspects of these differences has to do with the notion of equipotentiality.  As bigrams and trigrams function within  higher dimensional contexts  in the  I Ching,  this introduces a possibility of multiple alternative paths of movement and directions of change.  Put another way,  primordial I Ching logic encompasses many more  degrees of freedom  than does the logic of Taoism.^[5]  There is no one direction or path  invariably decreed or favored.  An all-important element of conditionality prevails.  And that might be the origin of what quantum mechanics has interpreted as indeterminism or chance.

Next up, a closer look at equipotentiality and its further implications.

Section F_H(n)^[6]

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] There are exceptions. Taoist alchemy describes existence of certain changes that admit reversibility under special circumstances.  Other than the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is macroscopic in origin,  not result of any internally irreversible microscopic properties of the bodies), the laws of physics neglect all distinction between forward-moving timeandbackward-moving time. Chemistry recognizes existence of certain states of equilibrium in which the rates of change in both directions are equal. Other exceptions likely occur as well.

[2] Since change is quantized in the I Ching, which is to say, it is divided into small discretized units,  which Line changes model,  the magnitude of change is determined by the number of Line changes that have occurred  between Point A and Point B in spacetime.  Reversal is far easier to achieve if only a single Line change has occurred than if three or four Lines have changed for example.

[3] Ironically, Taoism itself has pointed out the perils of popularity. Had the I Ching been less popular, less appealing to members of all strata of society, it would have traveled through time more intact.  Unless,  of course,  it ended up buried or burned. What is fortunate here is that much of the primordial logic of the I Ching can be reconstructed by focusing our attention on the diagrammatic figures and ignoring most of the attached commentary.

[4] These diagrams do not occur explicitly in the I Ching. The logic they are based on, though, is fully present implicitly in the diagramatic structural forms of hexagrams, trigrams, and bigrams and the manner of their usage in  I Ching divinatory practices.

[5] Or, for that matter, than does the logic of Cartesian coordinate space if we take into account the degrees of freedom of six dimensional hexagrams mapped by composite dimensional methodology to model mandalic space. (See Note [4] here for important related remarks.)

[6] 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 300-

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-