#planar

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.