My father, who is a lawyer, says the way you measure a lawyer’s intelligence is by how long it takes them to find a way to avoid having to actually practice law.
as a number theorist do you avoid numbers
That is in fact one of my stock jokes. “I’m a number theorist, which means I don’t study anything that involves actual numbers.”
I mean, do these look like numbers to you?
at least p,eandf represent numbers, but otherwise no, the objects you’re talking about are fields and sequences and groups and shit
i kind of expeceted symbols that represent, like, shapes, since you’re a geometric number theorist. Or some mathy generalizatin of shapes…… var…ieties??? idk
Before you can do geometry, you have to describe the numbers that your shapes are defined over. (x^4+y^4=1 has a very reasonable interesting graph over the real numbers, but a very boring one over the rational numbers, say.) So this is part of the windup to define the very weird sorts of numbers that my shapes are defined over.
(Part of what makes it “arithmetic” geometry is that we want to use the shapes to feed back and tell us things about the number systems.)
But then in my thesis, we’re studying this very complicated conjecture, so we want to look at the simplest possible geometric object. Which is of course a line. And a line defined over a number field is basically just that number field, potentially with some extra information attached. So we’re studying “a set of numbers, plus this weird geometrically-defined action on them”.
(Incidentally, “variety” is the right word in general, but not specifically here. “Variety” covers the shape, but doesn’t include all the data we attached to it. So I’m studying a “motive”, which is really hard to define in general but in this case basically means that there’s an action of the Galois group of my field on the shape in question.)
One of the notable things the Rationalists failed to take into account in their analysis and codification of square roots was the significance of context. In so doing they assured that all related concepts they developed would eventually degenerate into a series of errors of conflation. Do not ever underestimate the importance of context.
Mathematicians, for example, can show that for any 3-dimensional cube there exists a 2-dimensional square, the area of which equals the volume of the cube.[1] And although that is true, something has been lost in translation. This is another of the sleights of hand mathematicians are so fond of. Physicists cannot afford to participate in such parlor tricks as these, however mathematically true they might be.[2]
We will begin now, then, to examine how the mandalic coordinate approach stacks up against that of imaginary numbers and quaternions. The former are holistic and respective of the natural order; the latter are irresponsibly rational, simplistic and, in final analysis, wrong about how nature works.[3] Ambitious endeavor indeed, but let’s give it a go.
We’ve already looked at how the standard geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in context of the complex plane is based on rotations through continuous Euclidean space. You can brush up on that aspect of the story here if necessary. The mandalic approach to mapping of space is more complicated and far more interesting. It involves multidimensional placement of elements in a discrete space, which is to say a discontinuous space, but one fully commensurate with both Euclidean and Cartesian 3-dimensional space. The holo-interactive manner in which these elements relate to one another leads to a probabilistic mathematical design which preserves commutative multiplication, unlike quaternions which forsake it.
Transformations between these elements are based on inversion (reflection through a point) rather than rotation which cannot in any case reasonably apply to discrete spaces. The spaces that quantum mechanics inhabits are decidedly discrete. They cannot be accurately detailed using imaginary and complex numbers or quaternions. To discern the various, myriad transitions which can occur among mandalic coordinates requires some patience. I think it cannot be accomplished overnight but at least in the post next up we can make a start.[4]
Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions (A tesseract). There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons
Notes
[1] If only in terms of scalar magnitude. Lost in translation are all the details relating to vectors and dimensions in the original. Conflation does not itself in every case involve what might be termed ‘error’ but because it always involves loss or distortion of information, it is nearly always guaranteed to eventuate in error somewhere down the line of argument. The point of all this in our context here is that, in the history of mathematics, something of this sort occurred when the Rationalists of the Enlightenment invented imaginary and complex numbers and again when quaternions were invented in 1843. These involved a disruption of vectors and dimensions as treated by nature. The loss of information involved goes a long way in explaining why no one has been able to explain whyandhow quantum mechanics works in a century or more. These misconstrued theses of mathematics behave like a demon or ghost in the machine that misdirects, albeit unintentionally, all related thought processes. What we end up with is a plethora of confusion. The fault is not in quantum mechanics but in ourselves, that we are such unrelentingly rational creatures, that so persistently pursue an unsound path that leads to reiterative error.
[2] Because physicists actually care about the real world; mathematicians, not so much.
[3] It must be admitted though that it was not the mathematicians who ever claimed imaginary numbers had anything to do with nature and the real world. Why would they? Reality is not their concern or interest. No, it was physicists themselves who made the mistake. The lesson to be learned by physicists here I expect is to be careful whose petticoat they latch onto. Not all are fabricated substantially enough to sustain their thoughts about reality, though deceptively appearing to do just that for protracted periods of time.
[4] My apologies for not continuing with this here as originally intended. To do so would make this post too long and complicated. Not that transformations among mandalic coordinates are difficult to understand, just that they are very convoluted. This is not a one-point-encodes-one-resident-number plan like that of Descartes we’re talking about here. This is mandala country.
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. :)
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.
[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.
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. :)
In attempting to understand the logic of the I Ching it is important to know the differences between ordinary algebra and Boolean algebra and how Boolean algebra is related to the binary number system.[1]
In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the main operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunctionand, denoted ∧, the disjunctionor, denoted ∨, and the negationnot, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations. [Wikipedia]
Whereas in elementary algebra expressions denote mainly numbers, in Boolean algebra they denote the truth values false and true. These values are represented with the bits (or binary digits), namely 0 and 1. They do not behave like the integers 0 and 1, for which 1 + 1 = 2, but may be identified with the elements of the two-element field GF(2), that is, integer arithmetic modulo 2, for which 1 + 1 = 0. Addition and multiplication then play the Boolean roles of XOR (exclusive-or) and AND (conjunction) respectively, with disjunction x∨y (inclusive-or) definable as x + y + xy. [Wikipedia][2]
Mandalic logic already occurs fully in the structure and manner of divinatory practice of the I Ching, if some of it only implicitly. Although mandalic geometry does not originate from either Boolean algebra or the Cartesian coordinate system but from the primal I Ching which predates them by millennia, it does combine and augment aspects of both of these conceptual systems. It extends Boole’s system of symbolic logic to include an additional logic value represented by the number -1. This necessitates modification of some of Boole’s postulates and rules, and increases their total number through introduction of some new ones. The hexagrams or native six-dimensional mandalic coordinates of the I Ching are related to Cartesian triads composed of the numbers -1, 0, and 1, making these two geometric systems commensurate by means of composite dimension, a 6D/3D hybridization or mandalic coordination of structure and function (or space and time).[3]
The introduction of composite dimension produces four distinct dimensional amplitudes and is solely responsible for the mandalic form. For anyone reading this who might be down on sacred geometry, itself a subject which I respect and admire, let it be known that I am talking here about genuine mathematics and symbolic logic, and my suspicion is that there is some genuine physics involved as well.
The mandalic number system, then, is a quasi-modular number system, different from Leibniz’s binary number system which is fully modular. Boole’s rule 1 AND 1 = 1 still holds true in mandalic logic. However we must add to this the new logic rule that -1 AND -1 = -1. Individually the two rules are modular, based on a clock arithmetic using a modulo-3 number system rather than Leibniz’s modulo-2 or binary number system, but with yet another added twist.
Together the two rules prescribe a compound system, one which is not singly modular but doubly modular. The two components, yinandyang, are complementary and are inversely related to one another in this unified system. This logic organization appears based on the figure 8 or sine wave and its negative, allowing for periodicity, for recursive periods of interminably repeating duration, and, perhaps most importantly, for wave interference, of constructive and destructive varieties. These two geometric figures also engender an unexpected decussation of dimension not recognized by Western mathematics. This is so because 1 AND -1 = 0 and -1 AND 1 = 0. The surprise here is that there are two distinct zeros: 0a and 0b.[4] In two- or three-dimensional Cartesian terms there exists no difference between these two zeros. However, in terms of 6-dimensional aspects of mandalic geometry and the hexagrams of the I Ching, the two are clearly distinct structurally and functionally.[5]
This arithmetic system is the basis of the logic encoded in the hexagrams of the I Ching. Each hexagram uniquely references a single 6- dimensional discretized point, of which there are 64 total. These 64 6- dimensional points of the mandalic cube are distributed among the 27 discretized points of the ordinary 3-dimensional cube through the compositing of dimensions in such manner that a mandala is formed which positions 1, 2, 4 or 8 hexagrams at each 3-dimensional point according to the dimensional amplitude of the particular point. This necessarily creates a concurrent probability distribution of hexagrams through each of the three Cartesian dimensions.
TheI Chinguses a dual or composite three-valued logic system. In place of truth values, the variables used are yin, yang and the two in conjunction. These fundamentally represent vector directions. Yin is represented by -1, yang by 1, and their conjunction, using Cartesian or Western number terminology, by zero (0). This symbol does not occur natively in the I Ching though where the representation used is simply a combination of yin and yang symbols, most often in form of a bigram containing both and regarded as representing a composite dimension, namely 0[1] or 0[2].[6]
The two bigrams that satisfy the requirement are
young yang
for 0[1]
and
young yin
for 0[2].
Although mandalic logic is in Cartesian terms a 3-valued system, in native terms it is 4-valued. It is not a simple modulo-3 or modulo-4 number system, but two interrelated modulo-3 systems combined. The best way to think about this geometric arrangement is possibly to view it as a single composite dimension having four distinct vector directions: a negative direction represented by mandalic composite yin (Cartesian -1); positive direction represented by mandalic composite yang (Cartesian 1); and two decussating relatively undifferentiated directions in some sort of equilibrium, represented by mandalic 0[1] (composite yin/yang) and 0[2] (composite yang/yin). both of which devolve to Cartesian 0 (balanced vector direction of the origin or center).[7]
So we’ve seen that the number system used in the I Ching is not binary as Leibniz believed but instead doubly trinary with the two halves, in simplest terms, inversely related and intertwined. Still, it was an easy mistake to make because the notation used is binary. We’ve seen too that all trigrams and hexagrams in the system can be rendered commensurate with the Cartesian coordinate system: trigrams by simple transliteration, hexagrams by dimensional compositing. What, then, of George Boole and his eponymous logic? How do they fit in the logic scheme of the I Ching? I’m glad you asked. Stay tuned to find out.
Images: Upper: TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYMBOL OF YIN (LINE split in two) AND YANG (STRAIGHT-LINE). BLEND: 4 bigrams, THEN 8 trigrams. (MORAN, E. ET AL. 2002: 77). Found here. Lower: Modified from an animation showing how the taijitu (yin-yang diagram) may be drawn using circles, then erasing half of each of the smaller circles. O'Dea at WikiCommons [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons
Notes
[1] Boole’s algebra predated the modern developmentsinabstract algebra and mathematical logic but is seen as connected to the origins of both fields. Similarly to elementary algebra, the pure equational part of the theory can be formulated without regard to explicit values for the variables.
[2] If you are new to Boolean algebra these definitions may be confusing because in some ways they seem to fly in the face of ordinary algebra. I’ll admit, I find them somewhat daunting. Let me see if I can clarify the three examples given in this quote. Those of you more familiar with the language of Boolean algebra might kindly correct me in the event I err. I’m growing more comfortable with being wrong at times. And this is after all a work in progress.
Boolean XOR (exclusive-or) allows that a statement of the form (x XOR y) is TRUE if either x or y is TRUE but FALSE if both are TRUE or if both are FALSE. Since Boolean algebra uses binary numbers and represents TRUE by 1, FALSE by 0, then for x = TRUE, y = TRUE x + y = 1 + 1 = 0 , so FALSE for x = FALSE, y = FALSE x + y = 0 + 0 = 0 , so FALSE for x = TRUE, y = FALSE x + y = 1 + 0 = 1 , so TRUE for x = FALSE, y = TRUE x + y = 0 + 1 = 1 , so TRUE
Boolean AND (conjunction) allows that a statement of the form (x AND y) is TRUE only if both x is TRUE and y is TRUE. If either x or y is FALSE or both are FALSE then x AND y is FALSE. Here algebraic multiplication of binary 1s and 0s plays the role of Boolean AND. (Incidentally, binary multiplication works exactly the same way as algebraic multiplication. There’s a gift!) for x = TRUE, y = TRUE xy = 1(1) = 1, so TRUE for x = FALSE, y = FALSE xy = 0(0) = 0, so FALSE for x = TRUE, y = FALSE xy = 1(0) = 0 , so FALSE for x = FALSE, y = TRUE xy = 0(1) = 0 , so FALSE
Boolean OR (inclusive-or) is the truth-functional operator of (inclusive) disjunction, also known as alternation. The OR of a set of operands is true if and only if one or more of its operands is true. The logical connective that represents this operator is generally written as ∨ or +. As stated in the Wikipedia article logical disjunction x∨y (inclusive-or) is definable as x + y + xy [(x OR y) OR (x AND y)] as shown below. [Note: x AND y is often written xy in Boolean algebra. So watch out whichalgebra is being referred to, ordinary or Boolean. Are we confused yet?] for x = TRUE, y = TRUE x + y = 1 , xy = 1 , so TRUE for x = FALSE, y = FALSE x + y = 0 , xy = 0 , so FALSE for x = TRUE, y = FALSE x + y = 1 , xy = 0 , so TRUE for x = FALSE, y = TRUE x + y = 1 , xy = 0 , so TRUE
[3] Fundamentally, though, the coordinates of mandalic geometry refer to vector directions alone, rather than to both vectors and scalars (or direction and magnitude) as do Cartesian coordinates. Yin specifies actually the entire domain of negative numbers rather than just the scalar value -1. Yang similarly refers to the entire domain of positive numbers rather than the scalar value 1 alone. Their conjunction through the compositing of dimensions, though represented by the symbol zero (0) in the format commensurate with Cartesian coordinates, refers actually to a state or condition not found in Western thought outside of certain forms of mysticism and other outsider philosophies like alchemy; equilibration of forces in physics; equilibrium reactions in chemistry; and the kindred concept of homeostasis mechanisms of living organisms found in biology.
[4] This is to Westerners counterintuitive. Our customary logic and arithmetic allows for but a single zero. That two different zeros might exist concurrently or consecutively is - to our minds - irrational and we wrestle mightily with the idea. To complicate matters still more, neither of these zeros is conveniently like our familiar Western zero. So which should win out here? Rationality or reality? In fact, the decision is not ours. In the end nature decides. Nature always decides. It stuffs the ballot box and casts the deciding vote much to our chagrin, leaving us powerless to contradict what we may interpret as a whim. Our votes count for bupkis.
[5] This calls to mind also the Möbius strip which involves a twist that looks very much like a decussation to me. The decussation or twist in space we are talking about here though has a sort of wormhole at its center that connects two contiguous dimensional amplitudes. I can’t say more about this just now. I need to think on it still. It seems a promising subject for reflection. (1,2,3)
[6] It needs to be pointed out here that in mandalic geometry, and similarly in the primal I Ching as well, a bigram can be formed from any two related Lines of hexagrams, trigrams, and tetragrams. The two Lines need not be (and often are not) adjacent to one another. I would think such versatility might well prove useful for modeling and mapping quantum states and interactions.
[7] Note that yin and yang in composite dimension can each take the absolute values 0, 1, and 2 but when yin has absolute value 2, yang has absolute value 0; when yang has absolute value 2, yin has absolute value 0. This inverse relation in fact is what makes the arrangement here a superimposed, actually interwoven, dual modulo-3 number system. It also makes the center points of mandalic lines,squares, and cubes more protean and less differentiated than their vertices and elicits the different amplitudes of dimension.
The composite dimension value at the origin points(centers) of all of these geometric figures is always zero in Cartesian terms since the values of the differing Lines in the two entangled 6-dimensional hexagrams located here add to zero. But neither of these 6-dimensional entities is in its ground state at the center. Both have absolute value 1 at Cartesian 0. Let me say that again: composite dimension values at the center or origin are zero in Cartesian terms but the values of both individual constituents are non-zero.Yin is in its ground state when yang is at its maximum and vice versa. At the center, since the two are equal and opposite they interfere destructively. This results in a composite zero ground state.
So from the perspective of Cartesian coordinate dynamics, which is after all the customary perspective in our subjective lives, we encounter only emptiness. But it is this very emptiness that opens to a new dimension. In the hybrid 6D/3D mandalic cube only line centers and the cube center have direct access through change of one dimension to face centers and only the face centers have a similar direct access through a single dimension to the cube center and edge centers. All coexist in an ongoing harmony of tensegrity. There is method to all this madness then.
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. :)
We had an interesting discussion in our algebra department yesterday, about this innocuous-looking equation. I suggest you don’t try it, unless you’re equally happy with negative integer solutions or know something about elliptic curves!
As it turns out, the smallest positive integer solution has 80-digit numbers! Hence you won’t find these using brute-force computer searches without some insight on elliptic curves. If you want to read more about the mathematics behind this equation, read this delightful post on Quora by Alon Amit.
“You may have seen such meme images before. They are always pure click-bait garbage: “95% of MIT graduates couldn’t solve this!”, where “this” is some inane, or ill-defined, or trivial brain teaser.
This one is not. The meme is a clever, or wicked, joke. Roughly 99.999995% of the people don’t stand a chance at solving it, and that includes a good number of mathematicians at leading universities who just don’t happen to be number theorists. It is solvable, yes, but it’s really, genuinely hard.”
#the quora post is excellent
SECONDED
(In addition to providing a solution whose only incompleteness is that it omits most of headache-inducing transformation formulae, it also includes a rather extensive history of the problem… which confirms that it is indeed a wicked joke.)
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.
[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. :)
