#number line

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

(continued from here)

The four Cartesian quadrants provide the two-dimensional analogue of the number line and its graphic representation in Cartesian coordinate space.  This is the true native habitat of the square and, by implication, of square root.  Because  Enlightenment mathematicians  found fit to define square root in a different context inadvertently  -that of the number line- we will find it necessary to devise a different name for what ought rightly to have been called square root,  but wasn’t.  I propose that we retain the existent definition of tradition and refer to the new relationship between opposite numbers in the square,  that is to say,  opposite vertices through two dimensions or antipodal numbers, as contra-square root.^[1]

Modified from image found here.

Given this fresh context - one of greater dimension than the number line - it soon becomes clear with little effort that a unit number^[2]ofany dimension multiplied by itself gives as result the identity element of that express dimension. For the native two-dimensional context of the square the identity element is OLD YANG,  the bigram composed of two stacked yang (+) Lines,  which corresponds to yang (+1),  the identity element in the  one-dimensional context  of the number line. In a three-dimensional context,  the identity element is the trigram HEAVEN which is composed of three stacked yang (+) Lines.  The crucial idea here is that the identity element differs for each dimensional context,  and whatever that context might be,  it produces no change when in the operation of multiplication it acts as operator on any operand within the stated dimension.^[3]

As a corollary it can be stated that any number in any dimension n composed of  any combination  of  yang Lines (+1) and yin Lines (-1) if multiplied by itself (i.e., squared) produces the identity element for that dimension.  In concrete terms this means, for example, that any bigram multiplied by itself equals the bigram OLD YANG; any of eight trigrams multiplied by itself  equals the trigram HEAVEN;  and  any of the sixty-four hexagrams multiplied by itself  equals the hexagram HEAVEN; etc. (valid for any and all dimensions without exception). Consequently, the number of roots the identity element has in any dimension n is equal to the number 2ⁿ, these all being real roots in that particular dimension.

Similar contextual analysis would show that the inversion element of any dimension n  has  2ⁿ roots of the kind we have agreed to refer to as contra-square roots in deference to the Mathematics Establishment.^[4]

That leads us to the possibly startling conclusion that in every dimension n  there is an  inversion element  that has the same number of roots as the identity elementandall of them are real roots.  For two dimensions the two pairs that satisfy the requirement are bigram pairs

For one dimension there is only a single pair that satisfies. That is (surprise, surprise)  yin(-1)/yang (+1).  What it comes down to is
this:

If we are going to continue to insist on referring to square root
in terms of the one-dimensional number line, then

• +1 has two real roots of the traditional variety, +1 and -1
• -1 has two real roots of the newly defined contra variety,
  +1/-1 and -1/+1

So where do imaginary numbers and quaternions fit in all this? The short answer is they don’t.  Imaginary numbers entered the annals of human thought through error.  There was a pivotal moment^[5]  in the history of mathematics and science, an opportunity to see that there are in every dimension two different kinds of roots - - - what has been called square root and what we are calling contra-square roots.  Enlightenment mathematicians and philosophers  essentially allowed the opportunity to slip through their fingers unnoticed.^[6]

Descartes at least saw through the veil.  He called the whole matter of imaginary numbers ‘preposterous’.  It seems his venerable opinion was overruled though. Isaac Newton had his say in the matter too. He claimed that roots of imaginary numbers “had to occur in pairs.” And yet another great mathematician, philosopher opined.  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,  in 1702 characterized √−1 as  “that amphibian between being and non-being which we call the imaginary root of negative unity.” Had he but preserved such augury conspicuously in mind he might have elaborated the concept of probable numbers in the 18th century.  If only he had truly understood the I Ching,  instead of dismissing it as a primitive articulation of his own binary number system.

(continuedhere)

Image: The four quadrants of the Cartesian plane. By convention the quadrants are numbered in a counterclockwise direction.  It is as though two number lines were placed together, one going left-right, and the other going up-down to provide context for the two-dimensional plane. Sourced from Math Is Fun.

Notes

[1] My preference might be for square root to be redefined from the bottom up, but I don’t see that happening in our lifetimes. Then too this way could be better.

[2] By the term unit number,  I intend any number of a given dimension that consists entirely of variant elements of the number one (1) in either its positive or negative manifestation.  Stated differently,  these are vectors having various different directions within the dimension,  but all of scalar value -1 (yin) or +1 (yang). All emblems of I Ching symbolic logic satisfy this requirement. These include the Line, bigram, trigram, tetragram, and hexagram.  In any dimension n there exist 2ⁿ such emblems.  In sum, for our purposes here, a unit number is any of the set of numbers, within any dimension n, which when self-multiplied (squared) produces the multiplicative identity of that dimension which is itself, of course, a member of the set.

ADDENDUM (01 MAY 2016): I’ve since learned that mathematics has a much simpler way of describing this. It calls all these unit vectors. Simple, yes?

[3] I think it fair to presume that this might well have physical correlates in terms of quantum mechanical states or numbers. Here’s a thought: why would it be necessary that all subatomic particles exist in the same dimension at all times given that they have a playing field of multiple dimensions, - some of them near certainly beyond the three with which we are familiar? And why would it not be possible for two different particles to be stable and unchanging in their different dimensions,  yet become reactive and interact with one another when both enter the same dimension or same amplitude of dimension?

[4] Since in any contra-pair (antipodal opposites) of any dimension, either member of the pair must be regarded  once as operator  and  once as operand. So for the two-dimensional square, for example, there are two antipodal pairs (diagonals) and either vertex of each can be either operator or operand.  So in this case, 2 x 2 = 4.  For trigrams there are four antipodal pairs, and 2 x 4 = 8. For hexagrams there are thirty-two antipodal pairs and 2 x 32 = 64. In general, for any dimension n there are 2 x 2ⁿ/2 = 2ⁿ antipodal pairs or contra-roots.

[5] Actually lasting several centuries, from about the 16th to the 19th century. Long enough,  assuredly,  for the error  to have been  discovered and corrected. Instead,  the 20th century dawned with error still in place,  and physicists eager to explain the newly discovered bewildering quantum phenomena compounded the error  by latching onto  √−1 and quaternions  to assuage their confusion and discomfiture.  This probably took place in the early days of quantum mechanics when the Bohr model of the atom still featured electrons as traveling in circular orbits around the nucleus or soon thereafter, visions of minuscule solar systems still fresh in the mind. At that time rotations detailed by imaginary numbers and quaternions may have still made some sense. Such are the vagaries of history.

[6] I think an important point to consider is that imaginary and complex numbers were, -to mathematicians and physicists alike,- new toys of a sort that  enabled them  to  accomplish certain things  they could not otherwise. They were basically tools of empowerment which allowed manipulation of numbers and points on a graph more easily or conveniently.  They provided
their controllers a longed for power over symbols, if not over the real world itself. In the modern world ever more of what we humans do and want to do involves manipulation of symbols. Herein,  I think,  lies the rationale for our continued fascination with and dependence on these tools of the trade. They don’t need to actually apply to the world of nature,  the noumenal world,  so long as they satisfy human desire for domination  over the world of symbols it has created for itself and in which it increasingly dwells, to a considerable degree apart from the natural world’s sometimes seemingly too harsh laws.

© 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 310-

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.

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.

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-

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-

Neo-Boolean - II: Logic Gates
Thinking Inside the Lines

(continued from here)

We have already looked briefly at three of the more important Boolean operators or logic gates:  AND, OR,andXOR.NOT just toggles  any two Boolean truth values  (true/false; on/off; yes/no).  Here we introduce two new logic gates which do not occur in Boolean algebra. Both play an important role in mandalic geometry though.

We’ll refer to the first of these new operators or logic gates as INV standing for  inversionorinvert.  This is similar to Boole’s NOT except that it produces toggling betweeen  yang/+ and yin/- instead of 1 and 0. Because it is based on binary arithmetic, Boole’s NOT has been thought of as referring to inversion also (as in ONorOFF). Although both ANDandINV act as toggling logic gates they have very different results in the greater scheme of things,  since nature has created a  prepotent disparity between a  -/+ toggle  and a  0/1 toggle  in basic parameters of geometry, spacetime, and being itself. This makes Boole’s AND just a statement of logical opposition, notinversion.

Recognition of this important difference is built into mandalic geometry structurally and functionally,  as it is also into Cartesian coordinate dynamics and the logic of the I Ching,  but lacking in  Boole’s symbolic logic. This is necessarily so, as there is no true negative domain in Boolean algebra.  The OFF state of electronics and computers, though it may sometimes be thought of in terms of a negative state, is in fact not. It relates to the  Western zero (0), not the  minus one  of the number line. Where Boolean algebra speaks of  NOT 1  it refers specifically to zero and only to zero. When mandalic geometry asserts  INV 1  it refers specifically to  -1  and only to  -1 . The inversion of yang then is yin and the inversion of yinisyang.^[1]  In the I Ching,  Taoist thought,  and mandalic geometry the two are not opposites but complements and, as such, interdependent.

The second added logic gate that will be introduced now is the REV operator standing for reversionorrevert. This operator produces no change in what it acts upon.  It is the multiplicative identity element (also called the neutral elementorunit element),  as INV is the inverse element. In ordinary algebra the inverse element is -1, while the identity element is 1. In mandalic geometry and the I Ching the counterparts are yinandyang, respectively. If Boolean algebra lacks a dedicated identity operator, it nonetheless has its Laws of Identity which accomplish much the same in a different way:

• A = A
• NOT A = NOT A

Again, Boolean algebra has no true correlate to the INV operator. There can be no  sign inversion formulation  as it lacks negatives entirely. Although Boolean algebra may have served analog and digital electronics and digital computers quite well for decades now,  it is incapable of doing the same for any quantum logic applications in the future, if only because it lacks a negative domain.^[2]  It offers up bits readily but qubits only with extreme difficulty and those it does are like tears shed by crocodiles while feeding.

(to be continued)

Image: Boolean Search Operators. [Source]

Notes

[1] Leibniz’s binary number system, on which Boole based his logic, escapes this criticism, as Leibniz uses 0 and 1 simply as notational symbols in a modular arithmetic and not as  contrasting functional elements in an algebraic context  of either the Boolean or ordinary kind.

In the field of computers and electronics,  Boolean refers to a data type that has two possible values representing true and false.  It is generally used in context to a deductive logical system known as Boolean Algebra. Binary in mathematics and computers, refers to a base 2 numerical notation. It consists of two values 0 and 1. The digits are combined using a place value structure to generate equivalent numerical values. Thus, both are based on the same underlying concept but used in context to different systems. [Source]

[2] Moreover,  I expect physics will soon enough discover that what it now calls antimatter  is in some sense and to some degree a necessary constituent of  ordinary matter.  I can already hear  the loudly objecting voices  declaring matter and  antimatter  in contact  necessarily annihilate one another,  but that need not invalidate the thesis just proposed.  My supposition revolves around the meaning of “contact” at Planck scale and the light speed velocity at which subatomic particles are born, interact and decay only to be revived again in an eternal dance of creation and re-creation. Material particles exist in some kind of structural and functional  homeostasis,  not all that unlike the  anabolic  and catabolic mechanisms that by means of negative feedback maintain all entities of the biological persuasion in the  steady state  we understand as life. Physics has yet to  get a full grip  on  this  aspect of reality,  though moving ever closer with introduction of quarks and gluons to its menagerie of performing particles.

© 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 304-

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-