number systems - TumblrViewer

LIVE

Can a number system be both the new kid on the block and older than written history?

The real number system as it exists today has been with us for a few centuries. In foundation it is monovalent, monophasic, and sequential.

The probable number system dates to prehistory but was lost in the mists of time until recently rediscovered and resurrected. In contrast to the real number system it is foundationally bivalent, biphasic, and cyclic.

The probable number system has considerably more structure than the real number system and is therefore more robust. In this sense, it is similar to the complex number system.

In contrast to the complex number system, the probable number system in its foundation presupposes that numbers can assume wavelike forms capable of constructive and destructive interference operationally through the compositing of higher to lower dimension.

By means of compositing of dimension probable numbers are able to distribute throughout the entire mandalic unit vector cube (which is structurally a superposition of the 6-dimensional unit vector hypercube on the 3-dimensional unit vector cube) a function analogous in important ways to that performed in the complex number system by the centralized imaginary unit i.

Another important way in which the probable number system differs from both the real number system and the complex number system is the absence of nothingness and the zero representing it. In its place we find the concepts of balance and equilibrium. Nullification still exists in form of annihilation and its opposite in the form of creation. But the Cartesian coordinate system of ordered pairs and ordered triads is transformed by this approach to handling number and dimension from a ring into a field of hyperdimensional numbers over real numbers in three dimensions.

(to be continued)

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 315-

@mandalicgeometry

Sun, 29 May 2016 12:16:04

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.

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-

@mandalicgeometry

Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:09:05

Beyond Taoism - Part 2
Number System of the I Ching

(continued from here)

Many different number systems exist in the world today. Others have existed in times past. The number system we are most familiar with is base 10 or radix 10, which makes use of ten digits, numbered 0 to 9. Beyond the number 9, the numbers recapitulate, beginning again with 0 and shifting a new “1” to the 10s position, in a positional number system. Using this conventional technique all integers and decimals can be easily and uniquely expressed. This familiar numeral system is also known as the decimal system.^[1]

Another number system we are familiar with and use every day is the modular numeral system, particularly in its manisfestation of modulo 12, better known as clock arithmetic. This is a system of arithmetic in which integers “wrap around” and begin again upon reaching a set value, called the modulus. For clock arithmetic, the modulus used is 12. On the typical 12-hour clock, the day is divided into two equal periods of 12 hours each. The 24 hour / day cycle starts at 12 midnight (often indicated as 12 a.m.), runs through 12 noon (often indicated as 12 p.m.), and continues to the midnight at the end of the day. The numbers used are 1 through 11 and 12 (the modulus, acting as zero). Military time is similar, only is based on a 24-hour clock with modulus-24 rather than modulus-12. The modulus-24 system is the most commonly used time notation in the world today.

Binary arithmetic is similar to clock arithmetic, but is modulo-2 instead of modulo-12. The only integers used in this system are 0 and 1, with the “wrap around” back to zero occurring each time the number 1 is reached. Computers, in particular, handle this arithmetic system, which we owe to Leibniz, with remarkable acumen. George Boole also based his true/false logic on binary arithmetic. This, in itself, accounts for some of its strange, counterintuitive aspects, like the fact that in Boolean algebra the sum of 1 + 1 equals 0. Not your father’s arithmetic. But both Leibniz and Boole found profound uses for it. As did the entire digital revolution.

When we come to consideration of the number system and arithmetic used in the I Ching we can anticipate encountering equal difficulty in comprehension, possibly more. The system employed is a modular one - sort of. However, it uses negative 1 (yin) as well as positive 1 (yang) whereas zero (0) is nowhere to be seen, at least not in guise of an explicit dedicated symbol earmarked for the purpose. The "wrap around" appears to occur at both -1 (yin) and +1 (yang). Something different and quite extraordinary is going on here. This is no simple modular numeral system, though it may be masquerading as one.

Thus far the number system of the I Ching sounds much like that of Taoism. It is not, though. We have some big surprises in store for us.

Section F_H(n)^[2]

(continuedhere)

Notes

[1] See here for a list/description of numeral systems having other bases. A more comprehensive list of numeral systems can be found here.

[2] For explanation of this diagram see here.

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 297-

@mandalicgeometry

Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:24:16

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

Boolean Algebra:
Fundamental Operations

(continued from here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continuedhere)

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wikipedia]

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

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

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

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

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

-Page 294-

@mandalicgeometry

Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:22:32

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.

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-

@blindmen6

Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:25:27

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.