Difference being discrete, and our definition of Existence (as opposed to the more unattainable “Wu”), then, can be counted. In my first post I said “Wu” was zero.
Well, the first difference from Wu is one, so we could write:
But ‘negative one’ is just a place holder, an expression of the absence of one. That absence is ‘felt by’ the Wu. But we are not the Wu, we are the 1, so in a weird way:
Or, more comfortably: 1-1=0.
But that ‘absence’ is not to be ignored! As a matter of fact, it’s crucial.
Look at astrophysicists racking their brains at what Dark Matter could possibly be.
It’s only ‘Dark’ because they can’t measure it or observe it – and yet they noticed it – because the behaviour of our Universe was too strange without it – an absence of information is still information. -1 says “there used to be a one there” and we know how big it was too.
Our Existence, defined because of difference, is the reference point from which to measure Wu. Sure, we may not be able to measure all of Wu (is it infinite?), but we can certainly measure between here and over there.
We need to start thinking of ‘negative space’ like the artists do – the ‘pauses’ in music, the material removed from marble sculptures, the unoccupied space of the canvas. We don’t know what Wu is, but we know it’s there, in the gaps. But it’s also here, the ‘stuff-of-us’.
Difference being something discrete gives rise to the Natural Numbers (but let’s not forget zero!). We also have the Integers and Rationals. But what about the Real and Complex numbers? Quaternions and Octonions and so on?
Well, mathematicians state that the Real numbers are uncountably infinite, so infinite that they are infinitely continuous. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like Wu to me.
The continuity of Real Numbers pretty-much covers any and all dimensions. Wait. What? So Time is continuous? That’s pretty mind-boggling right there. Time, a sequence of events or changes, is continuous?
It’s hard to imagine a continuous flow of changes – especially since we just said that Difference is discrete!
Sure, compared to “Wu”, something is discretely different, but Time (being the observation of change) has to be discrete, because any change has to be discretely different from its previous state (it’s either different or it isn’t). So for a continuous yet discretely changing time-line, changes are continuous, but their “differences” are infinitesimally discrete. Isn’t that the same as ‘continuous’?
I’ve thought myself into a corner with this one… or I’ve come full-circle. Yes, Time is continuous. Or instead, Time doesn’t exist. Only change is continuous.
Is rate-of-change constant or varied? Without Time, one would be tempted to say ‘rate’ of anything is impossible. But that would be false. A rate is the ratio of the number of events occurring compared to another number of events.
One set of changes could be ‘faster’ than another (8 changes for every 4 of the other means it’s twice as fast). Well, by that comparison, we’ve just realized that rate-of-change is varied, by definition. Obviously – if everything changed at the same ‘rate’, then there would be no ‘rate’ to speak about.
Well, enough of that for now – on to more thinking. Leave a comment if this made you ponder…