“ALL Reality is Transformation” – A Review

Reality:

It may seem absurd that I see Reality (indeed, all Reality, hence the capital ‘R’) as being ‘made of’ Transformations. I am the first to admit it because this is my view almost despite myself – “I would it weren’t so”. In fact, it’s this very discomfort, this very dismay that motivates me to review each reason, carefully, once more.

While it may seem reasonable that, in seeking something which can both be ‘Sameness’ and ‘Difference’, I choose Transformation as the definitive candidate, it nevertheless seems difficult to grasp how that might come to be, in the real physical realm.
Continue reading ““ALL Reality is Transformation” – A Review”

Look again! Law of Paradox is True…

This is my most risky post. This is one of those posts I know will peg me as mad, but will turn out to be true, if only someone were to come along later and maybe re-word it so that it is more palatable to a wider audience. So here goes…

Much of philosophy is dependent upon three laws – what are called the three laws of formal ontology:

  • The Law of Identity (ID). It states “That which is, is.”
  • The Law of the Excluded Middle (EM). It states “Everything either is or is not.”
  • The Law of Non-contradiction (NC) (also strangely called the Law of Contradiction). It states “Nothing can both be and not be.”

I will show you that the last law (NC) is a contradiction in itself, and by being so, admits the validity of paradox.

But first, some ‘ground rules’ or tools with which to break down the three laws:

  • Truth:
    • Take to be True that which is permanent, which ‘hold still’. Truth forever is True.
  • Falsity:
    • Take to be False that which is not permanent, that which does not ‘hold still’. Falsity is never (not forever) True.
  • Not:
    • The inverse of ‘is’, where ‘is’ is ‘not-not’. So, ‘not’, on its own, is of similar quality to False, because it is unstable, undeterminable, and can never ‘hold’. All odd numbers of ‘nots’ are identical to a single ‘not’.
  • Is:
    • The inverse of ‘not’, or not ‘not’. ‘Not-not’, is of similar quality to True, because it is, stable and determinable, and will forever ‘hold’. All even numbers of ‘not’s are identical to a double ‘not’ –> ‘not-not’.
  • Or:
    • This is ‘not’, in the sense of ‘one, not the other’, this is a part, a disjunction, as per above False.
  • And:
    • This is not ‘Or’, or ‘not-not’, in the sense ‘Not(one not the other)’, this is the rejection of the part, acceptance of the whole, a conjunction, as per above True.
  • All:
    • That which exists and that from which is existed, both Thing and not-Thing. “Is and is not” which is ‘not-not not-not not-not not’, which is False, forever changing and unpredictable and cannot hold still.
  • Thing:
    • A ‘thing’ is what is, that which stands-out from the All, i.e. that which is not-All. Thing evaluates to “not-All”, so one more ‘not’, and so evaluates to ‘not-not’. True.
  • Nothing:
    • That which is not-Thing, i.e. “not not-All” – where ‘not-not’ is, so “Nothing is All”. Nothing == All. Nothing has the same qualities as All and as Falsity, it is forever changing and unpredictable and cannot hold still. False.

 

Now let us look at these laws:

The Law of Identity: “That which is, is.”

  • “That which is”, is “Thing” as per above. Thing is ‘not-not’.
  • “Is”, we’ve seen, is ‘not-not’.

Rebuilding this statement, we have “Thing is”: ‘not-not not-not not-not’: ID is True.

 

The Law of the Excluded Middle: “Everything either is or is not.”

  • “Everything” is ‘every (single) thing’. We can thus consider just one ‘thing’ and consider its truth to be applicable to every one of them. Thing is ‘not-not’.
  • “Either” is superfluous to “or”, so we can rephrase it to “Everything is or is not.”
  • “Is”, we’ve seen, is ‘not-not’.
  • “Or”, above, is ‘not’.
  • “Is not”, is ‘not-not not’.

Rebuilding this statement, we have “Thing is or is not”: ‘not-not not-not not not-not not’ – eight ‘nots’, which is True. EM is True.

 

The Law of Non-Contradiction: “Nothing can both be and not be.”

  • “Nothing” is ‘No Thing’, is not Thing, is ‘not not-All’, is ‘is All’, evaluates to ‘not-not-not’.
  • “Can”, is permission, so is equivalent to “is”, ‘not-not’.
  • “Both” is superfluous to ‘and’, just as ‘either’ was superfluous to ‘or’.
  • “Be” is “is”, ‘not-not’.
  • “And”, as above, is “is”, ‘not-not’
  • “Not be” is not “Be”, is not “is”, is “is not”, ‘not-not-not’.

Rebuilding the statement, we have “Nothing is and is not”: ‘not-not-not not-not not-not not-not-not’ – ten ‘nots’, which is True.

 

But let’s look at that last one (NC) again: We’ve seen that Nothing is All. So “All can both be and not be” This is a permissive statement indicating that A=¬A, a paradox! How can the Law of Non-Contradiction contradict itself?!? Because it admits paradox! At every moment, we remain coherent, even though it sounds so strange: “Nothing is and is not” <–> ”All is and is not”<–> ”All is True and False” (which, finally, is of vital importance if we’re to even have a concept of Truth, because there can be no Truth without what is not-True). This only admits that our Reality allows for the existence of Paradox (which, when you think about it, makes sense A) because we’ve got a name for it: Paradox, and B) we’re a part of this Reality, and we can conceive of Paradox, and C) it is a truly pesky thing which keeps cropping-up whenever mathematicians try to formalize the logic of the fundamentals of mathematics – paradox doesn’t go away!).

All, some may argue is not Nothing. But when you take Everything, and remove all boundaries between every Thing, you are left with a masse whole with no Thing – which is the apeiron – the All with out limit.

Substance vs. Space

It is important to distinguish the apeiron, or wu, from the space which emerges from it. They are not the same thing – or if they are, I need to be careful.

Just because the Dynamic and the Static define Points and then 1D Rotations etc., that does not mean that every Point is the Dynamic or whatever. Instead it means there is a Point wherever a zero-dimensional Reflection occurs. Wu is the substance, and the Point is the space which emerges from it. Transformations are the substance of Reality, at least I maintain. But transformations do not ‘occupy’ space, they define it.

This is the slipperiness of the notions we’re working with. Wu (apeiron) is not the null set, no matter how tempting it is to define it that way. Yes, the null set has no members, and Wu is the uniform unchanging substance of Everything and consequently has no relations, but it is not a set precisely because it has no boundaries, and so cannot be delimited by the concept of a set (remembering that null is “The set containing no members”). Wu cannot be contained but is the container. So the first ‘element’ of Wu is the null set, i.e. a delimited portion of Everything, which is not Wu. The null set is defined by the zero-dimensional Reflection ‘not.’

Maybe Wu can be defined by x ∉ ∅, without {}, thereby making it not-a-set, i.e. an element – but an element that cannot be an element of any set!

Even the ‘finesse’ available in set-theory which is the proper subset, where every element of a subset is identical to the set (from which it is ‘subbed’) yet this is not the same set, doesn’t fit the bill. This is why the null set is its own subset but not its own proper subset. Apeiron still doesn’t fit, because you still can’t say it is a proper subset of the null set, since it’s not a set!

There is another tack available to my reasoning though – because I said initially that Wu is transformations, it doesn’t mean that all transformations are identical. Yes, they are all inter-dependent (transformations transforming other transformations), but the first Static is sufficient for the emergence of Space, and the first Dynamic is sufficient for the emergence of Time, but is that to say that all of space is an infiny of points? I don’t think so. Yes, we use Points to refer to the position of something, so yes, this creates the possibility of reference.

Unfortunately I know far too little of Topology to begin to understand the various configurations available for a collection of Points. Yes, they certainly could be spherically arranged. They can also be flat (Euclidean). But an infinite expanse of an infinity of Points renders the ‘curvature’ of space a moot point, since an infinity of points allows for any shape imaginable – the concept of curvature ceases to hold any meaning.

Bah! I’m losing steam here. Running out of ways to move forward. Could my reasoning have gone down a dead-end path? Could I have thought myself into a corner? It looks like it, but I’m not giving up. I may have to start from Nothing again.

 

Reflections on Reflections: “IS”, not “IS NOT”

“Not” is about the only way I can think of expressing the concept of a zero-dimensional Reflection. By ‘Reflection’ I mean opposite, except that in zero-D, there is no position – maybe ‘inversion’ is more appropriate? In Zero-D, something either IS, or IS NOT. But if you think about it a little further, you’ll see that “IS” can be constructed from two “NOT”s – just like the bistable flip-flop in electronics. So “IS NOT” is actually three “NOT”s in a loop – which can be reduced to one “NOT” with its input tied to its output. This is the final, self-inverting, supremely astable paradoxical “Strange Loop”.

Continue reading “Reflections on Reflections: “IS”, not “IS NOT””

A Breakthrough?

If you’ve read along this far, you’ll have noticed how mercurial these matters can be. And, like mercury, madness isn’t that far away…

Well, I feel like I’ve hit something with such resonating truth, such obvious obviousness, that I know this is it! Now, to extract it while avoiding insanity is the hardest part – I don’t want to get high on my own fumes, so to speak. If, at any point, you feel like I’ve strayed into crazy-town, please, please let me know where you think that fork in the path lies – where did I begin to talk nonsense?

OK, let’s get started:

Continue reading “A Breakthrough?”

Atomic Loops

Atoms are the building blocks of this physical reality, and, by definition, Scientists should have, upon discovery of quarks, gluons and other ‘sub-atomic particles’, redefined those to be called Atoms, and so on as our knowledge gets refined – each time moving back ‘Atom’ to its rightful place.

In the Lisp programming language, things also called Atoms are defined. They are the ‘base unit’ of things upon which Lisp programs operate. The Atom is a Symbol. On that level, the number one “1”, is a symbol, and thus an Atom in Lisp – on par with the symbols foo, bar, bas, or any letter combination (or number combination, or letter-number combination for that matter).

This view breaks things down into two ‘sides’: Things – ‘Atoms’ – and operations – doing stuff to things. Atoms and Actions. (This, note, is very close to Patrick Jeanneret’s idea).

I’d been racking my brains trying to figure out how one could possibly define a boundary around a ‘bit of Wu’ in order to make it ‘ex-sist’, to make it stand out from everything else. How could one possibly establish that a bit of something is somehow different from Everything-else – which, after all, is ‘made from the same stuff as’ the bit you’re trying to distinguish?

But now, tentatively, it occurs to me as I write this (yes, the act of writing is my process of thinking), that the strange yin-yang-ness of physical reality (how I’d considered ‘us’ as being of ‘yin’ – arbitrarily – and that it somehow meant that there was a whole lot of ‘yang’ left-over that together made ‘Wu’) works out:

If ‘stuff’ is ‘yin’, then the boundary that separates it from ‘Wu’ (if I can even say such a thing) is ‘yang’, (I feel like yelling “Duh!!” at myself – obviously!) and that ‘yang’ is action, or “operations on ‘yin'”.

Then one has to ask: “If ‘yin’ is stuff, and ‘yang’ is action – and you’ve previously said that yin-stuff is just bits-of-Wu, then could it not just as validly be argued that yang-stuff is actually bits-of-Wu, and then that ‘yin’ is the boundary between yang-stuff? After all, you’ve well established that Wu is both yin and yang – that they arise out of Wu.”

And so the strange loop has undone me. Once again. Dammit.

So, what could possibly have both stuff-ness and do-ness at the same time? What do they both share?

A quick and lazy answer might be “They’re both Real – they are both aspects of Reality”.

But you have to stop at that answer. Reality just is, like Wu just is (on condition that I’m using ‘is’ in some sense greater than ex-sistence).

Playfully, I’m tempted to use the French expression “la boucle a été bouclée” – the loop has been looped. Which, quite beautifully, represents the very Wu-yin-yang problem I’ve been struggling with just now: A loop – a thing – has been looped – an action – which, both being the same set of symbols – L, O, and P – are both verb and object – Wu – a strange loop. Oh the joy! I’m actually chuckling to myself as I write this. The people around me must think I’m loopy!

A whole lotta Nothing

It’s true that I introduced the notion of “Wu” quite superficially and off-handedly in my first article Ex Sistere and then said no more about it, other than my position that “Wu” is the before-the-big-bang.

But that’s bad form. In truth, I wanted to get on to other concepts. Now it’s time to go back and look at things again.

Way, way back. Back to when the universe was a trillion times smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. I’m talking t=0, not t=1×10^-99.

The Universe was hardly a quiver, barely a tremor. Now go back just that little bit more; to t=-1×10^-99, to when all is still and unmoving.

Whoops! You actually went back too far. You went back to t=-10^99! How to do you get back from there to here? Well, you could at least go half-way, right? Ok, so go ahead. Look around you. Did you even move? You still seem just as far away to me. Try again. Ah, so now you’re at t=-2×10-99.

What’s this game I’m playing with you? Well, it’s to show you that before the big bang, neither space nor time had any relevant meaning – they didn’t exist, couldn’t exist. Everything was sameness in every possible dimension.

And it could have stayed that way for a million trillion years or a million trillionths of a second – we’d have no way of knowing.

You’re in ‘irrelational’ space-time, pure and whole “Wu”, nothing-and-everything, absolute isotropy, pure topological symmetry.

And yet it exists! It more-than-exists even, because this is that from which existence (our existence) emerges. And we know something happened to get us out of this sameness because we’re here to wonder about such things.

Now, I can’t honestly say something like “Well, obviously “Wu” didn’t ‘like’ staying the same because it changed and the big bang happened” because attributing such a sentiment (as an analogy for the inherent instability of ‘Wu’) means I’m thinking that ‘Wu’ didn’t last long – but I’m forgetting that it also lasted eternally (we’ve got to abandon time-related words!). So I could equally dishonestly say “‘Wu’ loved being the same and it’s astonishing to think that it changed at all.” A religious person might be inclined to think that their God is what/who ‘tipped the scale’ and pushed ‘Wu’ to change.

But we must be aware that tergiversating about ‘how long Wu lasted’ is sheer wrong-headedness!

The key is to think that Wu always was, yes, but it still is. It’s to realize not only was Wu perfect sameness but it is also the most fundamental ‘stuff’ everywhere, right now.

How can that be? Well, for starters we’re finally beginning to ask the right questions.

Difference and Existence continued

Hi, welcome back.

In my previous post I ended by saying that it was by far not all that could be said about Difference and Existence and I stick to that; there’s more work to be done.

So one question to ask is: “Is Difference discrete or continuous? And, by extension, is Existence also?”

After a little thought, I’ve come to the answer that no, Difference is not continuous, but Existence could be.

Difference is not a gradient between difference and sameness. Something either is or isn’t different, no matter how big or small you go. Even on the classic grey scale ‘line’ from black to white, there’s still one point where, even though white is more and more interspersed with black, the black finally stops, and it’s all white afterwards.

But Existence, or rather “Wu”, certainly could be continuous – I rather think it most probably is.

A quick way to demonstrate the notion of discrete difference and continuous “Wu” is to imagine a 2D grid, or mesh. Pinch one intersection and lift it away from the rest of the grid. Let the four line segments stretch into a pyramidal shape. There. The point at the top of the pyramid is discretely difference from everything else, yet the fact that it’s made of lines and intersections of the grid means it’s still part of everything else. Continuous.

Much to my own dismay, we have to leave Science behind at this point. But by no means must we leave Reason with it!

I say Science stops here because it is often said that Science only deals with what can be measured. And unfortunately, “Wu” cannot, by definition, be measured. Not with our brains. We need difference, a point of reference, a means to relate.

Ah, but there’s hope! Mathematics isn’t limited to 3D or 4D. It can go up to any number of dimensions.

I used to think that mathematicians used extra dimensions as a ‘magic wand’: “This theory/equation/idea doesn’t work in the nth dimension…” to which they’d say “Nuh-uh! It works in the (n+1)th dimension, so there.” Easy! Just invent a new dimension defined as “one where xyz-equation is True” and there you go!

But, thankfully, that’s not how it happens (in any self-respecting and honest circles).

Anyway, this all ties back to a notion I would entertain occasionally – that I (my consciousness and sensory impressions) was actually nothing more than ‘surfing’ on the crest of a wave as it moved through the Universe; a contortion of “Wu”, a wrinkle, or a million billion wrinklets, a frothing foam of “Wu” that I believe is hard Reality and Existence.

This, however, doesn’t mean we’re somehow hopping from one experience to another – from one ‘state of existence’ to another – because, just like the raised point on a 2D grid (in 3D space, admittedly), if you lift the next point, you have two raised points. You can now lower the former one, and you’ve effectively ‘moved’ from one space to the next in one continuous Existence. The difference is discrete, but the existence is continuous. Argumentative minds will contend the matter of having two points… I’ll have to think about that some more – this is, after all, an exploration…

Try it yourself – it’s pretty exhilarating to wonder – is your body, and everything you see around you, just the Difference Wave-front of a more invisible “Wu” of Nothingness that you ‘think’ you’re moving ‘through’? Surfs up, Dude! What a rush!