An important part of my integral approach to science relates to the fundamental role that holistic appreciation of the various number types can play.
In this holistic classification of numbers, I refer firstly to - what I call - the original numbers (1 and 0), then 2 and the other prime numbers, followed by the natural numbers (and integers) then the rationals, followed by the irrationals (algebraic and transcendental), the imaginary and complex and the transfinite.
Of course all of these are well recognised in standard analytic terms. However their true holistic significance has been greatly missed.
In what follows we will be confining ourselves to the holistic interpretation of the original, prime and natural nos.
The original numbers 1 and 0 have their holistic equivalents as oneness and nothingness respectively. Now, we must realise that we are here referring to dynamic - rather than static - notions. Nothingness in this context thereby refers to a physical (and spiritual) void as nothing (in phenomenal terms) which equally implies the potential for all phenomena of form. In the Eastern tradition this notion of nothingness is generally referred to as emptiness.
The critical point is that the ultimate origin (and destiny) of the Universe is often described in terms of the holistic interpretation of the original numbers.
Physical creation emerges from nothingness (holistic 0); likewise its ultimate goal and fulfilment is generally referred to in terms of spiritual oneness (holistic 1).
And as these notions relate to a continual present moment, they both ultimately coincide. So pure contemplative attainment can equally be referred to as spiritual emptiness (of nothingness) or alternatively as spiritual oneness.
What is fascinating is that the very symbols we use to refer to 1 and 0 respectively are the line and the circle. Thus in Western culture - where rational (linear) notions hold greater sway - the ultimate state is generally referred to as oneness; by contrast in Eastern traditions - with a greater recognition of intuitive (circular) notions, the ultimate state - by contrast - is generally referred to as a void (or emptiness).
So the pure ultimate state of the universe - either in terms of its physical origins - or alternatively its psychological destiny (in spirit) relates to a present moment (continually renewed) that is best referred to as the coincidence of oneness and nothingness.
In other words in this ultimate state, form (as independent phenomena) cannot be distinguished from emptiness (as the interdependence of all phenomena).
Thus using geometrical notions, we have here the pure coincidence of both linear and circular notions.
We can then learn a great deal about the possible origins of the physical universe with reference to corresponding development of the psychological universe in a baby infant.
In the beginning the (linear) conscious is not differentiated from (circular) unconscious; therefore neither the experience of phenomena (nor equally of dimensions of space and time) is possible.
Now because of the complementarity of physical and psychological, this likewise means that with the Universe, in the beginning (linear) form through distinctive phenomena, is not distinguishable from (circular) dimensions through interdependent links as between phenomena. So in the original state, one cannot make a distinction as between matter and spacetime (as neither enjoys an independent identity).
In psychological terms, experience of reality commences through the initial separation of conscious and unconscious. This then leads to the birth of duality (i.e. holistic 2).
In corresponding physical terms, actual phenomena come into being through the separation of linear and circular aspects of reality. Here, the most primitive phenomena attain a certain limited independence (while retaining an extremely high level overall of confused interdependence). This likewise creates a starting dimensional context (of space and time) for emerging phenomena.
So the birth of space and time in the Universe (as the holistic context for phenomena) coincides with the birth of distinct phenomena.
However, it is vital to realise that both phenomenal and dimensional characteristics of reality always have a merely relative validity, emerging necessarily from a continual absolute present moment.
Now the earliest infant experience of form (and dimensions) is - literally - of an extremely primitive kind. And in the understanding of "primitive", remarkably we find the true holistic qualitative context for appreciation of prime numbers.
With primitive infant understanding, conscious and unconscious - though not entirely confused - still remain greatly enmeshed with each other.
So, the primitive experience of an object (as conscious) immediately becomes identified with its holistic dimensional background (as unconscious). In this way the infant is unable to maintain a detached view of any object. Rather, because dimensions become immediately confused with objects, a quick collapse takes place in phenomenal events. So initially, experience of phenomena is extremely short-lived with no object constancy possible. This only materialises when the conscious achieves a greater degree of separation from the unconscious!
Again it is remarkably similar in physical terms. The first existence of objects is literally - in holistic mathematical terms - of a prime nature; likewise the dimensional context in which these objects exist is also prime. So the first phenomena exist in prime spacetime (with both aspects inextricably intertwined).
So the very essence of prime behaviour in qualitative terms is that both object phenomena and related dimensions (of space and time) remain tightly interwoven with each other. Therefore phenomena cannot maintain any constancy (which would require a stable background of space and time).
Now all this is deeply relevant to the reality we associate with string theory, for in a precise holistic mathematical sense, strings comprise the prime constituents (of both matter and dimensions).
If we look briefly now at the conventional understanding of prime numbers in mathematics it is quite revealing, for once again only the linear component is evident.
In other words prime numbers are looked on as the basic building blocks of the natural numbers. In like manner in physical terms, strings (as prime components) are looked on as the basic building blocks of all matter.
However there is an equal circular aspect to prime numbers. This relates to the fact that in their general distributional behaviour, they display a remarkable interdependence with the natural nos.
So from one valid analytic (linear) perspective, the prime nos. are the most independent structures, serving as the building blocks of all natural numbers.
However from the equally valid holistic (circular) perspective, the prime nos. are the most interdependent, being totally dependent on the natural nos. for their precise distribution. So as well as each prime number enjoying individual structure (as independent), overall prime numbers share a general state (as interdependent)
This then implies that there is a key ingredient missing from the conventional physical perspective on strings. Whereas the linear perspective is very prominent (i.e. with strings as structure forming the basic building blocks of matter) there is no equal appreciation of their important circular aspect as state. Here the overall behaviour of strings (relating directly to their dimensional characteristics) intimately depends on natural phenomena (to which they are related).
Thus a two-way relationship therefore necessarily exists as between strings (as prime constituents of matter) and dimensions (in the general relationship of strings to matter). Whereas it may be valid to say that (manifest) physical particles result from unique dynamic vibrations of a string, the actual dimensional properties of strings (in general) result in turn from their overall relationship to such physical particles.
All along I have maintained that one cannot divorce the (physical) properties of nature from the (psychological) dimensions employed for its interpretation.
As I have repeatedly stated, conventional science is based on 1-dimensional interpretation and is thereby - literally - linear in nature.
And in this view the basic ingredient or "stuff" of everything in nature is a string which again is - literally - envisaged as a 1-dimensional line.
So we can see here a remarkable correspondence as between physical matter and its corresponding psychological interpretation both of which are 1-dimensional!
Thus the starting point for a more balanced dynamic treatment (with respect to both physical understanding and its psychological mode of interpretation) is to explicitly combine linear and circular aspects.
And this is done through combining the present conventional understanding of strings (linear) with several higher qualitative dimensions of understanding (circular) thereby providing many unique interpretations of string reality.