The Symmetry Argument/Method
Symmetry is basically Dualism (Indian Philosophy), the idea/belief that the universe is made up of two but opposite parts. The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang
The idea is rather simple, examples will illustrate this: Hot-Cold, Tall-Short, Big-Small, Light-Dark, Male-Female, Particle-Antiparticle, etc.. Basically, thing vs anti-thing
Symmetry, as you may already know, is part of science too. Google should take you to the relevant pages.
We can then assume as an,
1. Axiom, The Universe Has Symmetry
Now, the interesting bit.
2. IF the universe has symmetry THEN for every thing there must be an anti-thing (the opposite).
Ergo,
3. Since there's the physical, there has to be the nonphysical.
4. Since there are true deterministic systems, there has to be true randomness.
5. Since there's gravity, there has to be anti-gravity.
6. Since there's a being that's powerless, ignorant, and bad (me :sad:), there has to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (God proven).
So and so forth.
This method of proving things is to be called The Symmetry Argument/Method in honor of The Scientific Method.
Unbreakable (2000) M. Night Shyamalan
Comments...
The idea is rather simple, examples will illustrate this: Hot-Cold, Tall-Short, Big-Small, Light-Dark, Male-Female, Particle-Antiparticle, etc.. Basically, thing vs anti-thing
Symmetry, as you may already know, is part of science too. Google should take you to the relevant pages.
We can then assume as an,
1. Axiom, The Universe Has Symmetry
Now, the interesting bit.
2. IF the universe has symmetry THEN for every thing there must be an anti-thing (the opposite).
Ergo,
3. Since there's the physical, there has to be the nonphysical.
4. Since there are true deterministic systems, there has to be true randomness.
5. Since there's gravity, there has to be anti-gravity.
6. Since there's a being that's powerless, ignorant, and bad (me :sad:), there has to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (God proven).
So and so forth.
This method of proving things is to be called The Symmetry Argument/Method in honor of The Scientific Method.
Unbreakable (2000) M. Night Shyamalan
Comments...
Comments (58)
I checked the references and my statement that science has unearthed symmetry in the universe holds up. A simple example would be matter-antimatter.
:up:
I can live with that.
Quoting 180 Proof
Broken symmetry! However, this could be just a phase in the cosmic tango - antimatter may show up and do its thing whatever that is. Yin-Yang specifically mentions that the balance between opposites is fluid, changing from one extreme to another and back.
I wish that were true but, luckily/unluckily, it ain't.
By the way, I'm fairly certain, out of character for a skeptic, that if symmetry is a property of the universe, and scientists seem to be zeroing in on that position, whatever I said would be true, no?
Quoting 180 Proof
Asymmetry is a phase. Yin-Yang is dynamic (ebb & flow, rise & fall, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley, my God, I didn't know there are so many ways to write this idea down).
Quoting TheMadFool
What if the universe has symmetry but is not all symmetric. In this scenario not every thing would require to have an opposite even if some things do.
This is very similar to my own BothAnd worldview, in which all parts of the world have balancing counterparts. Hence logically & necessarily, Dualism is inherent in Reality. But the second half of my notion is that dualism was necessary to create distinctions, and to allow for change. If the physical world was monistic, there would be only one big thing, and no room for change. However, you could also argue that the a priori Singularity (or G*D) was monistic and holistic, but then in an unprovoked act of creation, split like nuclear fission into a Big Bang, first into two halves (e.g. matter-antimatter). Then, as a chain-reaction, it continued to divide in a manner similar to meiosis of living cells. :nerd: ? ? ? ? ?
Quoting TheMadFool
Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables, to hold-up as a logical argument. Besides, an all-encompassing Unity, could not exist within our imperfect and ever-changing reality. Nevertheless, I reached a similar holistic G*D conclusion via a different line of reasoning. It's based on the notion that evolution is executing a Program, which must have a Programmer. Yet, the relationship between Programmer and Program is not symmetrical, it's conceptual. The whole is not just another part, or a counterpart. :smile:
Ebb & flow, ups & downs, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley. These are all descriptions of the universe, life, everything that take into account flux, the dynamic quality of the universe. The ancient sages geometrized the pattern as a circle/cycle but a circle doesn't quite do the job as it's static. The more apposite geometrical object would be the sine wave which is the best fit for all that was listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.
Quoting tim wood
Insofar as my thesis, The Symmetry Method, is concerned, I'm only interested in the big picture and not in the details because I lack the esssential skills to undertake an enterprise that delves into minutiae. I know, I know, the devil is in the details. Suffice it to say that if everything has symmetry (thing vs anti-thing) then, it isn't too much of a stretch to employ symmetry as an axiom and from there to make the inference that an anti-thing (an opposite) exists because a thing does.
Quoting Daniel
That's a contradiction. The instant an opposite is missing, that which suffers from this condition loses what can be called the contrast it needs to exist.
A coupla weeks ago a Mr. David Pearce, transhumsnist, was espousing his view that one day, it's hoped, suffering will be eradicated (Abolition of suffering he calls it) and everyone, it's predicted, will be, his own words, superhappy.
Transhumanism is a fairy tale that could become reality and it has a happy ending. However, what I couldn't fathom was (super)happiness sans suffering of some type to some degree. Posthumans wouldn't know the value of superhappiness if they don't know what suffering is. Yin-Yang. What is yin? Not yang! What is yang? Not yin!
A little thought experiment to drive home the point. Take a blue ball and keep it against one, a red background and two, a blue background. Would you be able to see the blue ball in the second case (blue background)? No! A thing and its opposite are existentially co-dependent i.e. one can't exist sans the other!
Quoting Gnomon
:up:
Quoting Gnomon
:up: Check out my reply to Daniel.
Quoting Gnomon
Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing!
Please visit Yin and yang for more information!
It's really not, though.
The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white.
Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :smile:
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
That's why the Yin/Yang concept describes a dynamic balance. Even the symbol looks like it's whirling around. The complementary oppositions of our universe (male/female, hot/cold) are what makes the world go around -- figuratively and physically. ?
I think what was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Taoism
(boldface mine)
But there are also at least such triplets:
hot - lukewarm - cold
good - neutral - bad
big - medium - small
male- hermaphrodite - female
up - middle- down
left - center - right
etc.
and quadruplets:
South - North - East - West
It's not that thinking in opposite pairs is a given, or somehow inherent. We formulate groups of competing concepts depending on our needs. For example, to orient ourselves geographically, we need at least 4 determinants.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, you shouldn't.
[i]All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.[/i]
Valid, but not sound.
There are two ways to relate to your axiom at 1:
A. As a third party observer, external to the universe and its âsymmetryâ;
B. As an aspect within the universe, subject to this âsymmetryâ.
If we assume the third party observer (ie. abstraction), then the rest of the argument logically follows (barring your understanding of âsymmetryâ, but Iâll get to that). It is when we position ourselves within the universe (as we are) that we have to assume or embody one side of this âsymmetryâ in order to âproveâ the other.
So, you âprove Godâ (as per 6) only to the extent that you accept your own relative position as powerless, ignorant and bad. The moment you consider yourself to BE good, knowledgeable or capable even to a small degree, your relation to God as absolute dissolves.
My main issue with your thesis is that 2 does not follow from 1. A binary relation is asymmetrical - any claim of âsymmetryâ is relative to a third party observer. As Rovelli says, âentanglement is not a dance for two partners, it is a dance for threeâ.
So what you consider to be âoppositesâ are such only in relation to a third party observer. Symmetry is arguably more accurate and stable as a triadic relation - one where an observer can embody any position (eg. energy-quality-logic).
We are limited by our systemâs unavoidable relation to everything else (gravity), by the variability this entails in the system (randomness), and by its finite access to energy (physical). But by the same token, more information can always be acquired about a system: anti-gravity, determinism, the non-physical and God represent awareness of relative powerlessness and ignorance, and our efforts (both good and bad) to relate to this. We can only imagine a third party observer external to these qualities in the universe, and so we strive for an understanding of ourselves in relation to them.
Good advice. I'll take it. That said, my intention was to point you to a reference on the dynamic nature of Yin and yang since you were implying balance (a feature of dualistic thought) is stasis.
What do you mean by "triality,..."? @baker shares your sentiments on this issue. The following few paragraphs are addressed to both of you.
First off, I have to admit that reality is more nuanced and subtle than supposed by dualistic, yin-yang paradigms. I remember employing the term spectrum Ă la the electromagnetic spectrum as an appropriate concept to capture the finer points of the universe. The spectral nature of reality is what you two are talking about and I concede that to be undeniably true.
The catch though is that yin-yang/duality is about extremes and how they interact with each other, these interactions spawning a multitude of points (the third, the middle way, Aristotle's golden mean, being the most obvious) between them. For instance, hot and cold produce tepid/lukewarm (the third value). Yin-yang/dualism, as you can see, doesn't ignore these in-between states (triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so on). In fact, yin-yang specifically mentions flux - the constant flow between extremes - and implicit in this is what two of you are talking about (triality, quadrality, quintrality, etc.)
Where were we? Ah, yes. Yin-yang/dualism is about extremes - the ends of everything in our spectral universe. How does that bear on my Symmetry Argument/Method. In the simple of terms, if a thing (one extreme) then for certain an anti-thing (the other opposing extreme) and, as an acknowledgement to the two of you, everything in between. Symmetry requires this to be true and it gibes with yin-yang philosophy (the to and fro between extremes).
Quoting baker
This was what tim wood was advising me not to do, "answer reflexively." Sound advice. Take a look at preceding few paragraphs.
Quoting jgill
That's just one way of interpreting symmetry. I'm more concerned by the symmetry of the particle-antiparticle kind.
Quoting Possibility
We're part of the symmetry. The third party is an illusion or, to be blunt, the third party doesn't exist. How could one be both inside (a part of the universe) and also outside (not a part of the universe - the third party)?
Expand and elaborate, please!
Quoting Gnomon
Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. Yin and yang are a dynamic duo each serving as only the limits or extremes of a given spectrum (grey areas). All the yin-yang idea is claiming is that there's a flux/flow between extremes that necessarily traverses the grey zone between black and white.
This makes sense. After all for a continuous spectrum there are infinite points in the grey zone. How many subdivisions of the middle zone do you want to create? It's both impractical and also misses the point of dualism/yin-yang to propose anything other than a dualistic paradigm for reality.
Quoting Gnomon
What's the difference between complementarity and symmetry? One that comes to mind is that the former is constructive (something better than the two opposites emerges from the interaction) while the latter is destructive (the opposites annihilate each other).
Symmetry as yin-yang seems to encompass both views - constructive pairs and destructive pairs. I'm by and large interested in the latter.
Quoting Gnomon
:up:
Exactly - this is the problem with your thesis. Read the rest of what I wrote. I agree that weâre part of the symmetry, but any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party. If we are part of a binary relation, then we can only observe the other. And this isnât symmetry.
Symmetry is âinvariance under transformationsâ (as per @jgillâs definition). In what way can we transform (by translating, reflecting, rotating or scaling) our relation to an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being that would preserve any of its features? Or more simply, in what way can we translate, reflect, rotate or scale any of these âsymmetryâ relations youâve described in the OP - from our position within it - that would leave any property of the relation unchanged?
Yin and Yang, properly understood, are interchangeable - in symmetry, there is no preference for one side or the other - they are equally different. But this can only be achieved by accepting that we can embody both sides equally, or neither. It has nothing to do with what the extremes are - itâs about observing the symmetrical quality of any relation from outside of it. The third party is not an illusion - itâs necessary. It is commonly overlooked in Western approaches to Eastern philosophy that there is always a practical aspect: a way of interacting.
So, if weâre part of the symmetry, then the symmetry is not a binary relation - some inherent dance of opposites. It has to be minimally triadic. Yin-yang is not universal symmetry - the symmetry lies in our observation/understanding of yin-yang. Itâs a dance for three. As is any symmetry of the particle/anti-particle kind.
Symmetry, in the context that you seem to be concerned about, seems limited to the number 2 (binary). Hence, your objection since you seem to detect a third party. You say, "...any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party." What you're saying is that dualistic symmetry can only be in the presence of a third party. That's your position on the issue.
Firstly, you've made a statement the relevants part of which I've reproduced above for clarification purposes but, do forgive my lack of astuteness, I don't see an argument backing up your claim of the necessity for a third party for the symmetry to hold. You do realize that you concede that there are two sides in play, otherwise the "third" in your third party doesn't make sense. If there are two (sides), the duality, yin-yang, the symmetry is complete. A third party neither makes nor breaks the symmetry.
Quoting Possibility
:ok: Thanks. It seems irrelevant to the kind of duality I'm interested in viz. the matter-antimatter kind. Good to know though.
Quoting Possibility
Well you have a lot of explaining to do then? Here I am observing the duality of hot vs cold. I also appreciate my participation in the duality of gender. Too, I'm alive and thinking (fingers crossed) as opposed to something dead and unthinking. These are all instances of me becoming cognizant of my own role in the duality of yin-yang. Am I outside myself? To recognize, to become aware, of the duality, the yim-yang of it all doesn't require a third party. Plus, playing the devil's advocate here, this mysterious third party will automatically it seems constitute a duet with an anti third party.
Yin-yang is about extremes. Examine it closely.
Quoting tim wood
Pyschology maybe crucial to the issue indeed. Nevertheless, I do like a cold drink on a hot summer day and my worn out old down jacket on a cold winter night.
My position is that dualism is asymmetrical when viewed from within. The apparent symmetry of any dualistic philosophy conceals a third relational aspect. Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. So this completion of symmetry is necessarily inclusive of a third party, regardless whether or not it is âperceivedâ as such by any party.
Try Edward Abbott Abbottâs âFlatland: a Romance of Many Dimensionsâ.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, it wonât automatically constitute a duet - the âanti third partyâ is the duality with which it interacts. And youâre not understanding yin-yang here, which demonstrates that any difference between hot and cold, alive and dead or male and female is arbitrary without an affected third party to distinguish between them. A third party enables awareness of difference between dark and light - this awareness is fundamental to the notion of yin-yang. Youâre attributing five-dimensional self-awareness to two- and three-dimensional structures. Of course you are outside of your âselfâ when you cognise its role in the duality of yin-yang.
Reasons? None given!
Quoting Possibility
What are you saying? It would/it wouldn't.
Perhaps. But I was replying to Tim's implication that "balance" must be static. It's true that perfect balance would be "static" and frozen due to the cessation of motion. But that's not a description of our ever-changing world. Instead, positive and negative forces in the universe, seem to be balanced just enough to allow for the emergence of Life & Mind, which would not survive a more chaotic environment.
I interpret the circle that encloses the swirling black & white forms to symbolize the dynamic balance of a whole (non-dual) system consisting of (dual) diametrically opposing forces. A static balance would be symbolized as equal halves of the circle. ? But a slight imbalance would allow for change. ? :cool:
Is the world balanced? :
Yes! It is. The world exists because there is a balance, a balance slightly in favor of stabilizing forces as opposed to destabilizing forces, . . .
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-balanced
OK. :smile:
It wouldnât - not automatically. I will concede that we have a tendency to consolidate towards dualism, but as a symmetry this is ignorant and ultimately self-destructive.
But let me see if I can understand where youâre coming from...
If a universal symmetry of only two equal and distinct aspects existed as such, then it would immediately dissolve (as 180 states). The fact that our universe doesnât, suggests that either:
1. The relational structure is not equal (dualistic);
2. The relational structure is not differentiated (monistic); or
3. The relation structure is not dual (triadic).
The first option I imagine is yours, and consists of an upper and lower limitation/extreme. It is most accurately rendered as a radial symmetry, a circle, like we perceive electrons in an atomic structure. Another example of this is geocentrism. This is what youâre referring to when you talk about matter/anti-matter, gravity/anti-gravity, determinism/randomness, ignorant/all-knowing, etc.
Itâs important to note that an efficient rendering of any symmetry relation is always missing one aspect, which is the reference point to be assumed in relation to it. A circle shows only one point, equidistant from a reference point which is assumed from the structure. This dualistic symmetry refers to an equal and distinct variability of one aspect in relation to another. Which aspect is matter and which is anti-matter makes no difference - one automatically assumes the other, and it is only the relation that we perceive and name âmatterâ.
Yet youâre not understanding dualistic symmetry as circular. Instead you refer to it as yin-yang, which you claim is the same idea. It isnât - itâs a rendering of triadic symmetry using a dualistic structure. The symmetry of the yin-yang symbol is in our relation to its duality: assuming a variable reference point (an observer) in relation to it.
So, if weâre looking at matter/anti-matter for instance as a yin-yang structure (with both aspects perceivable), then weâre assuming a reference point outside of it. Which means that weâre no longer looking at a dualistic relation, but a triadic one. The third reference point can be assumed fixed and central in relation to two differentially variable points, or variable in relation to a dualistic relation of two definitive âoppositesâ (ie. the black and white symbol). Itâs like the difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric perspective. Applying the notion of yin-yang as a dynamic symmetry enables us to perceive, explore and understand all three reference points in relation to each other, not just the two opposites in relation to âusâ as a fixed point.
The map is not the territory. âCeci nâest pas un pipeâ (Magritte). The yin-yang symbol is not the symmetry.
You've not argued your position! Argumentum ad nauseum! :vomit:
Also:
The weak force promotes changeability; the strong force promotes stability.
Molecules are neither prone to break apart and react with something nor to remain intact.
Energy doesn't change everything all at once not does it take forever to do anything.
One stable positive matter particle in free spaceâthe proton; one stable negative matter particle in free spaceâthe electron. One stable energy particle in free spaceâthe photon. This is a curious symmetry suggesting that there are only those number of ways to make stable particles in free space (and their anti-particles).
The negative potential energy of gravity balances (cancels) the positive kinetic energy of stuff.
Electric charge polarity plus and minus.
I think there is a fundamental flaw here - but forgive me if my explanation of this is not clear. Iâll try a different approach.
If the universe has symmetry, then it does NOT follow that every property or quality of the universe is symmetrical at every level of awareness. Gravity is qualitatively different from matter, which is qualitatively different from particles, etc. So it does NOT follow that âfor every thing there must be an anti-thingâ. 2 does not necessarily follow from 1.
The gravity/anti-gravity relation has potential symmetry with five-dimensional awareness, but not four - only one or the other can be observed/measured as an event, and neither can be rendered in only three dimensions (let alone two).
The matter/anti-matter relation has actual symmetry with four-dimensional awareness, but not three - only one or the other can exist as an object, and neither can be rendered in two dimensions.
Proton/electron (or atomic structure) has predictable symmetry in three dimensions, but not two - only one can be predicted as a wavefunction, and neither can be rendered as a linear structure.
Particle spin (positive/negative) has symmetry in two dimensions, but not one. One cannot exist without the other.
The yin-yang symbol is a rendering of this positive/negative symmetry at the base of all existence - but it can only be interpreted as such in five-dimensional awareness.
Quoting TheMadFool
As for our perceived impotence, ignorance and evil in relation to âGodâ, the symmetry of this relation is beyond even five-dimensional awareness. To predict our own potential to act, to know or to do good either breaks symmetry here, or disproves âGodâ. A universe in which our relation to âGodâ has symmetry must be at least six-dimensional.
Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing.
Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested.
That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang.
A human being. An ant. An apple. A cheesecake. Need I go on?
Quoting TheMadFool
Read âFlatland: A Romance of Many Dimensionsâ by Edwin A. Abbott, for starters.
Quoting TheMadFool
Only because you refuse to see it any other way. Iâm not invoking a third party, but evoking it. That third party is YOU, the observer who names âyin and âyangâ as such. If nothing else existed in the universe, then the existence of this yin-yang duality is contingent upon the existence of an observer, one aware of the distinction, who embodies/integrates this duality (or not). Such is the case for any duality you care to name.
Can you name your own âanti-â? Have you noticed what happens to your dimensional perspective of âselfâ when you try? To imagine the dissolution of yin-yang or any such dualism is to call into question our own consciousness. Itâs easy to assume that the foundation of all existence then is dualism, but we can equally assume that the foundation of all existence (as we understand it) is consciousness.
From Carlo Rovelliâs âHelgolandâ:
âFacts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another.â
âTo say that two objects are correlated means to articulate something with regard to a third object: the correlation manifests itself when two correlated objects both interact with this third object, which can check.â
This is not symmetry, but a relation between two and five dimensional existence. There is no invariance under transformation here. A symmetrical universe makes no distinction between unity and diversity, or between existence and non-existence, between yin and yang, possibility and impossibility. Symmetry is not in the duality but in its dissolution - recognising its ultimate contingency.
Language fails us here, but the basic gist of it is that symmetry is not opposition, but relation. Duality is contingent upon awareness, and vice versa, necessitating a triadic relation as the foundation of any âthingâ. Without this third party, there is no âthingâ or âanti-thingâ, only potentiality.
What's your definition of opposite?
I'm not sure there is such a thing, to be extremely anal. There are so many shades of gray.
1. My take on yin-yang is that they are opposites in a mathematical sense, like +y and -y. Bring them together like so: +y + -y and you get 0, nought. This cancelling of each member of a yin-yang pair is what balance/equilibrium is. This is both destructive (extremes are annihilated, +y and -y are gone ) and constructive (extremes are replaced by an in-between state, 0). Don't be fooled by 0, it doesn't mean nothing in this case. It only means, to use a warfare analogy, the two opposing sides are equally matched, a draw so to speak.
2. Yin-yang pairs are an universal feature in nature, in the universe itself. @Possibility mentioned apples, humans, ants, cheesecake etc. don't have opposites.
These objects are subjected to forces that are yin-yang in nature - humans are torn ( :chin: ) between good and bad, apples live and die, ants too, cheesecake are warm and then become cold.
Too, humans vs non-humans, apples vs non-apples, ants vs non-ants, cheesecake vs non-cheesecakes - even a child ( :wink: ) can think of an appropriate opposite for these items, either as a class or singly. Pay attention to what these things are and what happens to them.
If the universe was symmetrical, moving things would become dishevelled; they wouldn't hold up in such a perfect state.
Take, per se, a flat plane. The only positions available in such a perfect state would be checkered like a chess board, anything coming off diagonally or strange would result in dishevellment.
Is perfect/perfect symmetry?
The universe is more asymmetric than symmetric, but harmony of compound asymmetrical parts has resulted in symmetrical forms.
Life is more about symmetry than asymmetry, but the universe is definitely not symmetric.
It brings about the notion that for harmony to be obtained must it pass through a symmetry check?
So, what youâre saying is that there exists another state, between +y and -y, that you call 0, and that this âin-between stateâ is the balance/equilibrium, or symmetry. This 0 is manifest either as nothing (where +y and -y cancel each other out) or as something: âthe correlation manifests itself when the two correlated objects both interact with a third object, which can checkâ. This third object is you. As Rovelli states: âthe existence of a third object that interacts with both systems is necessary to give reality to the correlations.â You can abstract and talk about a âmathematical senseâ all you want, but in reality, 0 is either nothing or something. If itâs nothing, then +y and -y do cancel each other out. If itâs something, then there are three players in the game, not two, and there is no âcancelling outâ; only ignorance/isolation/exclusion.
Quoting TheMadFool
Youâre referring here to yin-yang pairs as potential properties of an object âin natureâ. This is applying your mathematical values of +y, -y or 0 to an observation/measurement in time. From any observerâs point in spacetime (4D), a cheesecake (3D) is observed as warm or cold, an apple is observed as living or dead, a human is observed as good or bad. But âfacts relative to one observer are not facts relative to anotherâ.
What youâre describing is a dance of three: the necessity of a third player in what you consider to be a âdualityâ. Nothing is cancelled out or âreplacedâ here. A cheesecake observed as warm is not precluded from being cold. In fact, what you consider to be a âwarmâ cheesecake, I might argue is âcoldâ. These are not opposites, but are properties or facts relative to the observer.
Quoting TheMadFool
And now youâre back to five-dimensional abstraction, describing not âitemsâ or objects observed in nature or in time, but perceived concepts or patterns of potential. âNon-appleâ is not an item in reality, but an indeterminate value in relation to your experience/knowledge relative to the concept âappleâ. It is your remaining perception of potentiality from which âappleâ is differentiated - the background or negative potential, so to speak. And your differentiation of apple vs non-apple is not identical to mine - the joint properties of these two concepts as a âdualityâ exist only in relation to oneâs perception.
The apparent duality of the universe is a reductionist perspective - its potential symmetry is contingent upon an external perception: what you refer to as 0, the relational structure that necessarily exists between the two. The yin-yang symbol as rendered is the third aspect that is necessary for symmetry, whether it is rendered as ink on a page, stones in a mosaic or pixels on a screen. But the symmetry of yin-yang has nothing to do with the opposition of light and dark (which is a Western interpretation), and everything to do with quality, energy and logic. To focus on âoppositesâ in yin-yang is to miss the point entirely.
Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would.
Quoting Possibility
Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though).
Quoting Possibility
Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you.
You say this, but how would you know? Sun and snow would exist, sure, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between them as hot and cold, near and far, up and down. Yinyang, too, would exist, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between yin and yang, let alone any recognition of âoppositesâ.
The tai-chi symbol commonly used to depict yin-yang is the simplest description of the relation between unity and diversity. It is not a static symbol, but an expression of the dynamic relationship between multiple aspects of a whole, in which âoppositionâ or duality is only a surface appearance: an initial encounter with consciousness. Like most Eastern philosophy, it doesnât attempt to define reality, but is understood only when this encounter with our physical existence is factored in.
Quoting TheMadFool
As real as apples? Does this mean you can visually describe or define a non-apple for me, in the same way that you can visually define an apple? Can you distinguish a non-apple from anything other than an apple? âNon-appleâ refers to anything and everything that is not an apple, from an orange to stardust out beyond Mars. It is an indeterminate concept, as real as the concept âappleâ and its potential, but not as definitive as the apple I hold in my hand, or the one I ate yesterday. These I can describe in great detail, and their descriptions will be different from each other in small ways, but will have many similar properties. A ânon-appleâ is defined only by its relationship to the concept âappleâ. An orange is an example of a non-apple, but is no more the opposite of an apple than stardust.
It is only in potentiality that the relationship between apple and non-apple has duality. Thatâs not to say it isnât real, but that this existence is potential, not actual. It consists of language, experience, knowledge, thought, perception, intention, value, etc. You canât fully demonstrate the relationship between apple and non-apple in nature - you can only offer examples of the conceptual duality, relative to your perception of it, and construct a similar concept in the perception, experience, language, etc of another. Conscious existence is key.
Quoting TheMadFool
Recognising opposites is just the initial encounter. Itâs what happens next - the dance between unity and diversity in your experience - that is what yin-yang is about. Pay attention to how your consciousness can shift between unity, duality and diversity as you strive to understand the yin-yang symbol. There is no symmetry, no stability in an encounter with duality that doesnât resort to ignorance, isolation or exclusion. There is unity and there is complex diversity - and duality is just an heuristic device to get you from one to the other.
I agree that consciousness, I really hope we're tuned into the same channel here, plays a significant role in duality; after all it's a point of view, a way of looking at the world. However, I'm reluctant to say it's all up here, in the head. After all, empirical data of the world does yield a yin-yang pattern in reality.
I've heard of non-duality (advaita vedanta for example) but haven't studied the arguments. Too, non-duality is said to be self-refuting since it stands in opposition to duality forming a pair.
Quoting Possibility
You need to give this some more thought.
Iâm certainly not saying itâs all in the head. Thereâs a tendency to assume non-duality must be idealistic monism (or else materialism), but I think this is a misunderstanding born of reductionism.
Empirical data is contingent not just upon an observer, but an actual observation/measurement event. An interaction in spacetime (4D). Non-duality in the sense that Iâm referring to here, though, is not a reduction from five to four-dimensional awareness, but a paradigmatic shift from five to six-dimensional awareness.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is no argument. Advaita (non-duality) is not in opposition to forming a pair, but rather dissolves the necessity for distinction by understanding that Atman IS Brahman. Just as the eternal Tao is the ten thousand things, unnamed. In the realm of possibility, diversity is identical to unity, and vice versa. This is what is meant by âinvariance under transformationâ. Itâs not really a way of looking at the world, but rather a way of understanding it so that we can more accurately perceive potential from a variety of perspectives, and from there more carefully and responsibly interact as part of the world.
Then why are we arguing? :chin:
Quoting Possibility
This is a classic case of obscurum per obscuris or even more accurately what we have here is full-blown case of Ignotum per ĂŚque ignotum.
Quoting Possibility
Word play!