The Universe of Opposites
Jeremy asks, "is the thinking that everything has an opposite just the human consciousness imposing itself on reality?"
I’d say that maybe this could be right in some cases. After all we could say that light is the opposite of dark, but light can simply be measured as a degree of darkness and vice versa, you could say they are one and the same thing.
However, mathematically speaking we could state that negative (–) is the opposite of positive (+) and when we perform a basic mathematical calculation using these operators they do indeed have an opposite effect on the final result so it works out that, 6 + 2 = 8 and 6 - 2 = 4, but does that make them opposite? Broken down into their basic whole numbers, the number 8 is just 8 × 1 and 4 is 4 × 1. The results are different but they are made up of the same thing, 1. Could it be that it’s just the operator’s that are a human idea that are opposite not the outcome? To my reckoning 8 is not the opposite of 4. So my point is, if the idea of opposites is just humans imposing their own limits in thinking on reality, then maybe, could it be that the very fundamental elements of mathematics are wrong?
The mathematical operators in this case are opposites and are also concepts that come from the human consciousness, but the bottom line is they work. Some people proclaim that mathematics is the language of the universe. We have to remember in all of this that we are observing the Universe from within it and I believe this limits our view when we try to make sense of something that is as amazing as creation. We are also part of it, not separate from it, and in fact I’ll go as far to say that if the Universe has consciousness then we as animate beings could be it.
Was this the reason that Einstein tried and was unsuccessful to devise a ‘Formula for Everything’ before his death? “He spent the last 30 years of his life chasing after an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, that would explain all physical phenomena. Everything from Creation, to supernovas, to atoms and molecules, perhaps even DNA, people, and love was to be explained by this equation. If discovered, it was to have been the ultimate achievement of 2,000 years of investigation into the nature of space and matter” (www.firstscience.com).
If I am right in my theory that we are in effect a part of the Universe could it be, that Einstein didn’t take this into account, and that trying to solve the mysteries of the Universe would be akin to an eye trying to look at itself?
I’d say that maybe this could be right in some cases. After all we could say that light is the opposite of dark, but light can simply be measured as a degree of darkness and vice versa, you could say they are one and the same thing.
However, mathematically speaking we could state that negative (–) is the opposite of positive (+) and when we perform a basic mathematical calculation using these operators they do indeed have an opposite effect on the final result so it works out that, 6 + 2 = 8 and 6 - 2 = 4, but does that make them opposite? Broken down into their basic whole numbers, the number 8 is just 8 × 1 and 4 is 4 × 1. The results are different but they are made up of the same thing, 1. Could it be that it’s just the operator’s that are a human idea that are opposite not the outcome? To my reckoning 8 is not the opposite of 4. So my point is, if the idea of opposites is just humans imposing their own limits in thinking on reality, then maybe, could it be that the very fundamental elements of mathematics are wrong?
The mathematical operators in this case are opposites and are also concepts that come from the human consciousness, but the bottom line is they work. Some people proclaim that mathematics is the language of the universe. We have to remember in all of this that we are observing the Universe from within it and I believe this limits our view when we try to make sense of something that is as amazing as creation. We are also part of it, not separate from it, and in fact I’ll go as far to say that if the Universe has consciousness then we as animate beings could be it.
Was this the reason that Einstein tried and was unsuccessful to devise a ‘Formula for Everything’ before his death? “He spent the last 30 years of his life chasing after an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, that would explain all physical phenomena. Everything from Creation, to supernovas, to atoms and molecules, perhaps even DNA, people, and love was to be explained by this equation. If discovered, it was to have been the ultimate achievement of 2,000 years of investigation into the nature of space and matter” (www.firstscience.com).
If I am right in my theory that we are in effect a part of the Universe could it be, that Einstein didn’t take this into account, and that trying to solve the mysteries of the Universe would be akin to an eye trying to look at itself?
posted by Father Dave at 4:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home