Thursday, March 31, 2011

Is Reality Just Number? (3)

One issue that needs to be clarified here is the relationship as between number and other mathematical symbols. On the one hand it would be valid to maintain that the fundamental nature of reality (as phenomenally revealed) is mathematical. However I would also contend that it is more precisely related to number.

Basically I would maintain that number in fact implicitly requires other key mathematical symbols and relationships.

For example I have frequently identified 1 with the (straight) line and 0 with the circle. So there are intimate links here as between key numerical and geometrical notions.

Also the important operations of addition and subtraction are again implied by the most basic of numbers (1 and 0). The very recognition of form in any context implies 1. So for example if one distinctly recognises an object this implies the corresponding inherent recognition of 1. So without such recognition one would not be even able to differentiate objects in experience.

However equally implied by such recognition is the (conscious) positing of the object (which is the holistic meaning of +).

The awareness of emptiness - which in holistic terms is 0 - by contrast requires the ability to (unconsciously) negate recognition of distinct objects. So quite literally in both analytical and holistic terms 1 - 1 = 0.

Without this ability to dynamically negate - to a degree - distinct phenomena in experience, integration would not be possible.

So what we have here established is that from a holistic mathematical perspective, 1 and 0 are intimately related to both differentiation and integration respectively. And these two processes are fundamental with respect to all phenomena (in both physical and psychological terms).

The derivation of further numbers then arises from these basics.

If instead of the complementary relationship 1 - 1 we consider 1 + 1, we then generate 2 (as a new number) which in holistic terms defines all duality in experience. This also serves as the first prime number. Now we can generate all the natural numbers through considering 2 + 1, 3 + 1, etc.

However equally these natural numbers will serve as unique expressions of the product of prime numbers. So in this relationship as between prime numbers and natural numbers (and natural numbers and prime) the operations of multiplication and division are born.

Ultimately I would maintain that all the key mathematical operations, symbols relationships etc. are implied through the recognition of numbers (when considered in both analytic and holistic terms).

More correctly perhaps it should be said that they imply each other. So it is not strictly the case that the numbers come first in recognition but rather that they both simultanously arise (in implicit fashion).

So in this sense to say that all reality - at the phenomenal level - is number, is really a more emphatic way of maintaining that such reality is mathematical.


In a previous contribution I mentioned that the qualitative nature of phenomena arises through differing configurations of space and time (to which these are related).

Now once again these configurations are related directly to number (when interpreted in a holistic sense).

In this context 1 can be identified with linear type reason that serves as the basic for scientific understanding as conventionally understood (and by extension standard conceptions of space and time).

0 by contrast would be identified with pure intuition at the other extreme from reason. This would be especially relevant to a contemplative type vision of reality. Unfortunately it is not incorporated in current notions of science which therefore possess a strong - merely - quantitative bias.


However all other numbers (apart from 0 and 1) are associated with intermediate type interpretation where both reason and intuition are formally included. So when such numbers are holistically used as dimensions we generate an unending range of new configurations (real and imaginary) through which space and time are configured.

Once again, as I have repeatedly explained in these contributions, the appropriate holistic structure associated with a number (as dimension) is intimately related to its corresponding root form.

The two roots of 1 are + 1 and - 1. In corresponding complementary fashion 2 as holistic dimension combines both positive and negative polarities of form in a dynamically interactive manner (where linear and circular notions of understanding are involved). Applied to space and time this likewise implies that too must be conceived at this level of understanding in terms of complementary opposite polarities.

Ever more intricate configurations with both real and imaginary aspects are then associated with dimensions > 2.

The qualitative nature of phenomena then arises from the varied mixing of such dimensions giving unlimited complexity with respect to possible space and time configurations.

So we can see in this manner that the true nature of space and time has a profound holistic mathematical rationale (as befits its inherent qualitative nature).

Thus object phenomena that are initially conceived in a quantitative manner continually interact with space and time dimensions (that are qualitative in nature). So the uniqueness of the various phenomena we experience, coincides with the corresponding (holistic) uniqueness of the dimensions with which they interact.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Is Reality Just Number? (2)

In the last contribution I suggested that - what we know as - reality at its most fundamental level represents a simple binary digital number system operating interactively in both an analytical (linear) and holistic (circular) manner.

The importance of this digital system in analytical terms is well recognised in IT technology where it has the capacity to successfully encode all information.

The corresponding importance of this same system in holistic terms - though not as yet recognised - is that it has the capacity to successfully decode all transformation systems i.e. as the dynamic interaction of both linear and circular logic.

However the most startling revelation comes from the incorporation of both systems whereby reality itself in all its diverse and complex intricacies (both physical and psychological) thereby represents both the encoding and decoding of the combined two systems.

So one way of looking at the nature of reality is as a dynamic computer programme that operates in a creative intelligent fashion.

However the implication of what is being expressed here is that at its most fundamental level reality has no discernible phenomenal basis.

This clearly has important implications for physics for the quest to unravel the secrets of nature (with reference to its phenomenal material characteristics) must ultimately be in vain.


As the great mystics of all ages clearly recognise, reality is utterly ineffable (in phenomenal terms). In other words it is of a pure spiritual nature (which is equally the ultimate nature of physical matter).

However at the next level which essentially acts as the bridge as between this underlying infinite (non-phenomenal) and the finite phenomenal realms, mathematical reality is born.

So ultimately mathematical meaning - when truly appreciated - is rooted in this great need to provide a connecting bridge - as it were - as between the finite and infinite realms.

Of course the value of mathematical symbols in understanding the finite side of this bridge has long been recognised.

Indeed in the quest to understand the ultimate nature of physical reality, string theory has now become so mathematical in nature that it has become increasingly difficult to give its findings a coherent physical explanation.

However the equal value of the same mathematical symbols - when understood in a qualitative holistic sense - for approaching close to infinite spiritual meaning has been all but lost in our culture.

So what we have with present science is a merely quantitative type approach (largely devoid of qualitative meaning).
One of the implications of this approach is that it has led to fundamentally distorted notions of space and time.


Properly understood the initial starting base for physical objects comes from the quantitative aspect of mathematical understanding.

However the correct starting base for the dimensions of space and time that they inhabit, should come from the qualitative (holistic) aspect of mathematical appreciation.

So our current notions of "default" common dimensions that are shared by all physical phenomena is the result of unbalanced thinking (i.e. where qualitative aspects are reduced to mere quantitative interpretation).

However correctly understood the great qualitative diversity of phenomena derives from the fact that they are defined with respect to relatively unique configurations of space and time (which yet also have shared common characteristics).

Without (qualitative) dimensions, phenomenal objects have no meaning. Likewise without (quantitative) phenomena, dimensions likewise have no meaning. So reality at all levels - physical and psychological - necessarily represents the interpenetration of merely potential quantitative and qualitative aspects (as considered separately) in the dynamic display of what represents actual phenomena.


One startling conclusion of all this is that in approaching ever closer to the quantitative origin of nature, we equally possess the power to give it differing qualitative configurations in space and time.

In other words as ultimately phenomena have no rigid tangible basis, we have potentially the power to literally create them as we wish.

At some future more advanced stage of evolution, far greater levels of spiritual realisation will provide the conditions for radical transformation of the qualitative dimensional nature of matter (thereby changing its phenomenal characteristics).

Our true identity is indeed God. So as we approach closer in realisation of this identity, the free creation of phenomena will thereby become possible.

And these new powers will have a corresponding scientific explanation in an enhanced paradigm that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative understanding (which at its deepest level is purely mathematical in nature).

Monday, March 28, 2011

Is Reality Just Number?

It should be apparent in the first instance that number is essential in quantitative terms.

The very notion of quantity implies some form of numerical ordering! What is not however so obvious is the realisation that number is equally essential from a qualitative perspective where it plays a holistic role complementary to what is accepted in conventional (quantitative) terms.

To appreciate this important point we can initially confine ourselves to the two most fundamental numbers 1 and 0. As we know these two digits can be used - as in modern computers - to successfully encode all information (in quantitative terms). However what is not commonly appreciated is that the same two digits can be potentially used to encode all transformation processes when used with respect to their holistic qualitative meaning.

So, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 in this context relates to the linear use of logic in the analysis of form and 0 to its corresponding circular use (as an indirect expression of the holistic awareness of emptiness).


Some appreciation of this latter holistic use of number can be obtained with reference to the mystical traditions.

In Western tradition the linear notion of form tends to dominate understanding. Not surprisingly, ultimate spiritual meaning is generally expressed as union with reality, which relates directly to the holistic appreciation of 1. In the more intuitively based Eastern spiritual traditions, by contrast ultimate reality is often referred to as "a void" or "emptiness" (i.e. nothingness) which represents the corresponding holistic appreciation of 0.

So all information and transformation processes can ultimately be encoded in terms of number. The next giant leap is then to appreciate that the phenomenal characteristics of reality that we observe are of a secondary nature representing dynamic number configurations (that combine both quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Therefore at the most fundamental level of appreciation we cannot hope to interpret reality with respect to these mere phenomenal characteristics. This has important implications for physics as it implies that ultimate explanations cannot be obtained from the behaviour of phenomena but rather from the mathematical structure inherent in such phenomena. And this behaviour must combine both conventional analytic and the - as yet - (unrecognised) holistic aspects of interpretation.

Stating it again directly, reality as phenomenally observed represents the dynamic configuration of numbers with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics. And at the most general level this can be understood merely in terms of 1 and 0 (which is sufficient to provide a basic encoding for all information and transformation processes).

Friday, March 25, 2011

Parallel Wonders

Following on my last contribution it would be instructive to demonstrate futher important points regarding the "true" nature of physical reality (through corresponding reference with the complementary psychological connection).

In physical terms we have (partial) physical objects that dynamically exist through interaction with a (holistic) dimensional framework of space and time. In corresponding psychological terms we have (specific) perceptions that dynamically interact with (universal) conceptual classes. So for example a specific electron perception necessarily interacts with the universal conceptual class of electron. In other words an electron as quantitatively perceived thereby must relate to the qualitative concept of "electron". The psychological dimensional framework of each electron in space and time is provided through its conceptual appreciation. However as we can have many different types of object perceptions, likewise we can have many corresponding dimensional concepts.

For example the concept of a proton or neutron is qualitatively distinct from that of an electron. The clear implication therefore is that in a very important sense every distinct object phenomenon relates to a unique dimensional form of space and time.

So with respect to physical reality, rather than one space and time reality (to which all objects collectively exist) we have in truth an unending series of uniquely distinctive dimensional realities in continual interaction with each other. The reason why we do not recognise this important fact is again directly due to the limited nature of the scientific paradigm we employ. The rational paradigm is solely geared to quantitative type appreciation.

Therefore it can only deal with the qualitative dimensional aspect through a process of reductionism where all distinct objects are assumed to belong to the same standard collective framework of space and time.

However once we explicitly allow for qualitative type consideration through indirect incorporation of circular (intuitive) type appreciation, then all objects have both quantitative and qualitative aspects.

In complementary fashion all dimensions have both quantitative and qualitative aspects. So correctly understood in qualitative terms corresponding to each unique object class is a unique dimensional configuration of space and time which continually interacts in quantitative fashion with one collective quantitative interpretation. As we have seen, correctly understood gravity has both physical and psychological aspects that are complementary.

In physical terms, gravity is increased through the erosion of the "empty" physical dimensions that inhabit the very structure of matter. In complementary psychological terms, gravity is increased through erosion of the material physical phenomena relating to dimensions. So for example a deepening conceptual understanding requires the consequent erosion of attachment to specific phenomena of a perceptual nature. Not surprisingly a person who is deeply rooted in holistic concepts is likely to develop a more "grave" or serious personality (as the surface light associated with superficial phenomena is eroded).

As I have commented on before, in physical terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding extent of physical mass entailed. In complementary psychological terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding loss of matter entailed. So for example with the death of a loved one a profound loss - of what in literal terms greatly matters - is involved leading to the customary experience of grief (directly representing psychologically gravity).

And such grief can lead to a curving of psychological space and time. Due to the unconscious development that such an experience entails, a marked transformation in one's customary (conscious) perceptions and concepts can take place thereby altering experience of space-time phenomena. Finally it is quite clear from the psychological perspective that matter and energy on the one hand and dimensions and gravity on the other bear a direct complementary relationship to each other.

Thus deepening psychological gravity at an unseen unconscious level is later the very source of expansive spiritual light (in visible conscious terms). So in complentary physical fashion this also necessarily applies. Therefore deepening gravity (as for example in black holes) is later the very source of the expansive physical light than extends the phenomenal universe.

In fact in holistic mathematical terms, we have the beautiful relationship that gravity and (electromagnetic) energy are real and imaginary with respect to each other. So "real" gravity is "imaginary" energy; likewise "real" energy is "imaginary" gravity. And this relationship applies equally in both physical and psychological terms. Indeed its very recognition requires that both physical and psychological aspects of reality be viewed in a complementary manner.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Wonders of the Universe

It seems that the BBC has now found their answer to Stephen Hawking through their own series “The Wonders of the Universe” hosted by Professor Brian Cox. Now Brian Cox, a former member of the 90’s pop band D-ream is something of a wonder himself as he looks far too young to be a professor. However there is no doubting his communication skills and his undoubted knowledge and love for his subject.

Indeed I found his programme demonstrating how elements here on Earth have emerged from the high temperature processes within stars compelling viewing as it clearly showed how we are all truly children of the Universe (and indeed of the original Big Bang which is believed to have started it all)!

The following programme "Falling" on gravity proved of equal interest as he showed how this mysterious force is responsible for the structure of all phenomenal forms in the Universe.
Initially he confined himself - which accepting that it was not fully satisfactory - to Newton’s conception of gravity. However towards the end of the programme he showed how it failed to precisely predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun and how Einstein’s new theory of Gravity in “The General Theory” perfectly corrected this problem.

However though Einstein’s Theory has been brilliantly successful in its own right he admitted at the end of the programme that even this was not a complete theory.

I would agree with this statement. However the true implications are much more profound than what most physicists would be willing to accept.


To properly understand the role of gravity we need to look on physical in a manner complementary to psychological reality.

In psychological terms it would be readily accepted that our experience is based on the inevitable interaction of both conscious and unconscious aspects. In direct terms the conscious aspect enables us to differentiate phenomena analytically as parts. In corresponding fashion the unconscious enables the integration of such phenomena in a holistic unseen fashion.
Now from a scientific perspective, rational understanding corresponds to this conscious aspect of experience whereas – in direct terms – the holistic aspect is provided through intuition.

However the big problem with present scientific understanding is that is formally based on mere rational modes of enquiry. Therefore it inevitably reduces - in any context - the holistic intuitive aspect to rational interpretation.

As I have stated, properly understood the physical view of the universe corresponds in complementary fashion to its psychological means of interpretation. Therefore when we allow for both conscious and unconscious modes of experience this entails that in physical terms we allow for a physical aspect (that is phenomenally visible) and a holistic unseen aspect (that is empty of form).

So then correctly understood in dynamic interactive terms what we term the physical universe represents (visible) phenomena of form in ceaseless interaction with an invisible holistic ground.
This then directly corresponds with a rational (conscious) mode of interpretation with respect to visible phenomena and an intuitive (unconscious) mode with respect to the underlying invisible ground of reality.

Now of course when we adopt a reduced mode of understanding as with Conventional Science we attempt to view physical reality as merely visible phenomena corresponding to a rational mode of interpretation.

The key reason I would suggest as to why the gravitational force has proven so elusive and mysterious is precisely because of the inadequate mode of present scientific enquiry.
In fact correctly understood, gravity plays a complementary role in the physical universe to the unconscious in psychological understanding. Therefore we cannot properly appreciate its nature through the standard paradigm of scientific understanding that altogether ignores in formal terms the role of the unconscious.

In physical terms we have material phenomena which are in some sense visible always exist in a dimensional context of space and time (that serves as an invisible background). Now of course space and time indirectly (though this dynamic relationship with matter) can have phenomenal aspects (such as distance).

However correctly understood, phenomenal objects in space time represent the continual interaction of what are specifically visible in the context of a holistic environment (that is invisible). In other words pure space and time (if we could conceive of their nature) would be fully empty of phenomena. And without matter, such dimensions could not therefore exist. So such emptiness relates to an underlying present moment that continually exists.

Now gravity arises from this interaction of (specific) phenomena of form with its (holistic) dimensional background of space and time.

In normal circumstances gravity is an extremely weak force. For example the gravitational pull of the entire Earth would not be enough to stop one easily lifting an object such as a stone from the ground!

This weakness of gravity reflects the fact that in practice what we consider as dense matter is almost entirely made up of “empty” space.

This weakness of gravity led Newton for example to consider the phenomena of the Universe as existing in flat space and time (as non-interacting containers of all objects that exist). This in turn is consistent with linear notions of space and time.

Now there is a complementary parallel to this view as given by the standard scientific paradigm (based on mere rational interpretation). Here unconscious interference is so weak that the physical universe can seemingly be understood in a merely conscious manner (based on the linear use of logic).

So Newton’s worldview in physical terms is properly consistent with linear rational interpretation (which despite many recent paradoxical findings remains in effect the undisputed paradigm for science).


I have always found Einstein’s work fascinating as its true implications have only been partially recognised. The great paradox with Einstein is that his contributions overthrew the Newtonian world view of absolute space and time. However Einstein still remained a steadfast believer in the classical scientific paradigm (that is properly consistent with Newton’s views).

In his General Relativity Einstein showed that gravity can exert a considerable force where extremely large mass is concerned. Then it would act to “bend” in some measure space-time. In particular with black holes where “empty” space would get squeezed out entirely from matter, space-time would then become completely curved.

However what is not at all properly realised is that this inevitable curvature of space and time (in the context of strong gravity) equally applies to the qualitative manner in which we seek to interpret physical reality.

Indeed a fascinating correspondent exists on the psychological side to the notion of a “black hole” as exemplified most starkly in the writings of the great Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross.

One can view authentic contemplative life as starting from the standard linear conscious worldview. However, as the influence of a developing spiritual intuition (based on the unconscious) becomes ever stronger, a dramatic change takes place in one’s customary understanding. So St. John dramatically portrays the most intense dark night where understanding becomes completely curved (i.e. purely intuitive). This happens through a process of detachment from all conscious understanding of phenomena (which literally happens through a squeezing out of space and time). Not surprisingly one feels at such time as if in a dark and narrow dungeon where one is scarcely able to breath (due to the suffocating congestion). And the reason why this experience is a “dark night” is precisely because conscious light - based on linear notions of understanding - is not able to escape during such a transformation.

So with pure contemplative spiritual awareness, space and time become completely curved representing an extreme in terms of unconscious type intuitive development. Likewise as we have seen linear assumptions with respect to "flat" space and time represent a corresponding extreme with respect to conscious rational understanding.

The clear implication of all this is that a comprehensive paradigm for science necessarily must combine both conscious and unconscious through the explicit integration of both (rational) linear and (intuitive) circular modes of interpretation.

Though the nature of gravity necessarily remains mysterious, its true nature in physical terms relates to an inevitable dynamic interaction as between (visible) phenomena of form and a holistic (invisible) dimensional background of space and time.

A true understanding of gravity therefore equally requires from a psychological perspective a complementary dynamic interaction as between rational (conscious) and intuitive (unconscious) aspects of understanding.

So gravity is a force which has complementary physical and psychological interpretations.
This is even evident in conventional understanding. Gravity of personality for example reflects an experience of the world that is rooted in a deeper holistic structure of meaning. By contrast a superficial or “light” personality operates at a very low level of psychological gravity through relationship with mere conscious appearances.