In the last post I addressed the fact that corresponding to each number in Holistic Mathematics is a unique scientific interpretation of reality.
So the range of possible interpretations is infinite with Conventional Science based on just one of these numbers (i.e. 1).
This I believe is a truly remarkable finding - which if even remotely grasped - should end all notions of science having reached its zenith!
Indeed we can make further remarkable statements based on holistic mathematical interpretation. For not alone does every number possess a unique qualitative dimensional significance (as indicated) but equally every symbol and relationship - with an already established significance in Standard Mathematics - can likewise be given a unique holistic mathematical explanation with intimate relevance for psychological interpretation of reality.
And those theories and hypotheses that already have been shown to have a special importance in standard quantitative terms would possess an equally important significance in holistic qualitative terms.
Indeed to demonstrate this point to my own satisfaction I spent several years examining the Riemann Hypothesis in the attempt to establish its true qualitative psychological significance. Then as an altogether unexpected bonus this paved the way for - what I am confident - is a true resolution of the hypothesis.
So I established in the end that the famed hypothesis is actually expressing a fundamental condition for maintaining consistency as between both the quantitative and the qualitative interpretation of mathematical symbols.
Of course one clear implication of this is that it cannot be solved in standard mathematical terms (as it is based on recognition of the quantitative aspect only).
So correctly understood - as I would see it - the Riemann Hypothesis serves as one expression of a vital axiom in a more comprehensive radial mathematical approach (i.e. that explicitly entails both quantitative and qualitative aspects of interpretation).
So not alone is the standard approach to Mathematics inadequate for the task of solving the Riemann Hypothesis, it is even inadequate in terms of understanding its true nature!
However it would be mistaken to believe that the relevance of Holistic Mathematics (and related Integral Science) is confined to qualitative interpretation of a psychological kind.
For once one departs from the default linear (1-dimensional) interpretation of Conventional Mathematics (and Science), a two- way complementary relationship exists as between physical and psychological understanding. Thus at all other levels, what we "see" with respect to physical reality inevitably reflects in considerable measure the psychological manner by which it is interpreted.
Thus the physical and psychological aspects of (interpreted) reality are mirrors to each other so that the structure revealed in one is the same structure pertaining to the other.
The clear implication of this therefore is that not alone do we have an infinite set with respect to potential interpretations of reality, but equally we have an infinite set of (corresponding) physical realities.
So the great error that is committed by adherents merely of the standard linear approach is the belief that there is just one physical reality "out there" with just one valid manner of overall interpretation.
Though most scientists may not fully subscribe to the pure representation view (i.e. that our chosen mental constructs reveal reality as it actually is) in practice they behave as if this is exactly the case!
However once again when we recognise the legitimacy of the other dimensional numbers (as interpretative structures) we are faced with the inevitable conclusion that we cannot possibly view what is "out there" for in truth a potentially infinite set of interpretations (and corresponding physical realities) exist.
Putting this another way, the inevitable conclusion of adopting this more comprehensive approach is an acceptance that science can only attempt to grapple with secondary phenomenal appearances that serve in an infinite variety of ways to mask what is truly primary and essential (i.e. spirit).
Existing scientists are slowly coming to accept that physical reality in its deepest workings behaves very differently from what is seen at the normal macro level of observation.
So the 1-dimensional method of Conventional Science is best equipped to deal with normal macro reality.
Unfortunately while now recognising that sub-atomic reality conforms to different rules, essentially the same linear method is still being used for interpretation.
It is hardly surprising therefore that quantum reality for example appears so strange and paradoxical (as it is continually viewed through an inappropriate interpretative lens).
At an even deeper level string theory in the same attempt to pursue a merely quantitative type appreciation has rendered itself virtually meaningless as a coherent philosophical (qualitative) explanation of reality.
And this is where the new interpretative models based on higher dimensional numbers) come into play which lead among other things to a new appreciation of dimensions.
I will return to this briefly again in a further post!