 |
| Painting by Deborah Kommalan who copied Van Gogh's style to make this painting. |
Van Gogh went through a period during which he collected Japanese prints and used them as inspiration. He even copied them.
So in way when seeing Van Gogh's paintings, one is also in contact with Japanese painters and Japan's nature through a hidden time dimension:
a time axis that is orthogonal
to the linear
AND
perpendicular time axes.
to the linear
AND
perpendicular time axes.
.
It is the same with the the idea of zero - 0, whenever we use that numeric figure we are in contact, even if unconsciously, with ancient India where 'zero' was invented.... and even... Japan where the O symbol stands for emptiness.*
It is similar to when one reads, hears or says,
"Higgs' Boson"...
One is then not only connected to S.N. Bose (the Indian scientist after whom the boson is named) but also to India... even if unconsciously!
The zero can be written as 0 (zero) and as O (origin):
- On a number-line the 0 falls between +1 and -1,
- In the Cartesian Coordinate System O is the intersection of various axes - usually 2 or 3 of them.
In the algebra that we use when dealing with points on each individual axis it is a 0 (zero), but as soon as two or more axes are in play the idea of 0 (zero) makes no sense... hence it is to be identified as O, O for origin.
Relating this to my proposed '12 D space-time theory
When we say "Higgs' Boson" we are connected to Satyendra Nath Bose and India... that is orthogonally: {(-t'''. tP.n).(-t'". tP.n)} to usual linear time: (t'.-tP.n).
The minus signs indicate that it was occurring in the past, and n indicates the quantity of passed time in Planck Time units (tP).
So, something that seems 'hidden' (e.g. the Japanese prints that Van Gogh collected, or the Indian origin of zero or the Japanese Buddhist notion of emptiness) it is really rolled up in what is:
'p r e s e n t' or (t'.t''.t'''.tP.0.n).
That 0 at the end, although algebraically correct, makes no sense (because of the multiple axes!) hence it becomes O (origin). Suddenly the Buddhist notion of emptiness gets filled with meaning and is thus a pregnant Origin... full of potential!
The meaning of 'HERE & NOW' - 'Hic and Nunc'
What we call 'NOW' - that acute identification of 'this here now' - is the indivisible PRESENT where even Planck Time (tP) granularity does not come into play.
Of course not!
If it did, if tP would have to be multiplied by 0 (zero) and Here & NOW would not exist, and if tP were spread over linear time (t'.tP), meaning if it would have to be divided by 0 (zero), one would get infinity... And we know from String Theory **, how infinity create problems unless one applies 'normalization' tricks.
In '12 D space-time theory' its coordinate system diagram consists of four nested - NOT hidden or rolled up - dimensions. And when (after each axis at a time has been figured in - when on each single axis, zero is still relevant ) all populating is done all temporary zeroes necessarily become O.
Any 0 will always become O
O, however, will never becomes zero!
What this comes down to.
When the 0 (zero) was originally invented it was considered to be a totally hypothetical numeric figure to be used to indicate the 'absence of something' and 'place value in the decimal system'.
The 0 (zero) was designed as a handy and temporarily necessary figure to deal with large numbers (place-value) and to be used use in arithmetical and algebraic calculations (on a single axis number-line or a linear time-line).
It was later discovered and concluded (Descartes) that as soon as a second axis (and subsequently even more axes) was involved, that the zeroes on number and time-lines really had to be defined as O for ORIGIN instead of 0 for zero or "nothing".
The minus signs indicate that it was occurring in the past, and n indicates the quantity of passed time in Planck Time units (tP).
So, something that seems 'hidden' (e.g. the Japanese prints that Van Gogh collected, or the Indian origin of zero or the Japanese Buddhist notion of emptiness) it is really rolled up in what is:
'p r e s e n t' or (t'.t''.t'''.tP.0.n).
That 0 at the end, although algebraically correct, makes no sense (because of the multiple axes!) hence it becomes O (origin). Suddenly the Buddhist notion of emptiness gets filled with meaning and is thus a pregnant Origin... full of potential!
The meaning of 'HERE & NOW' - 'Hic and Nunc'
What we call 'NOW' - that acute identification of 'this here now' - is the indivisible PRESENT where even Planck Time (tP) granularity does not come into play.
Of course not!
If it did, if tP would have to be multiplied by 0 (zero) and Here & NOW would not exist, and if tP were spread over linear time (t'.tP), meaning if it would have to be divided by 0 (zero), one would get infinity... And we know from String Theory **, how infinity create problems unless one applies 'normalization' tricks.
In '12 D space-time theory' its coordinate system diagram consists of four nested - NOT hidden or rolled up - dimensions. And when (after each axis at a time has been figured in - when on each single axis, zero is still relevant ) all populating is done all temporary zeroes necessarily become O.
Any 0 will always become O
O, however, will never becomes zero!
What this comes down to.
When the 0 (zero) was originally invented it was considered to be a totally hypothetical numeric figure to be used to indicate the 'absence of something' and 'place value in the decimal system'.
The 0 (zero) was designed as a handy and temporarily necessary figure to deal with large numbers (place-value) and to be used use in arithmetical and algebraic calculations (on a single axis number-line or a linear time-line).
It was later discovered and concluded (Descartes) that as soon as a second axis (and subsequently even more axes) was involved, that the zeroes on number and time-lines really had to be defined as O for ORIGIN instead of 0 for zero or "nothing".
Notes:
* The problem of misunderstanding the notion of 0 - Zero (i.e. the assumption that zero represents the physical reality of 'nothing') started when people interpreted the Indian invention of that hypothetical 'zero' as though it was a real number... as though something like "nothing" could exist.
Well, it cannot...
If it did exist, it would not be called "nothing".
So, even if very handy, the use of 'zero' is just an arithmetic tool, only temporarily useful on one-dimensional (linear) number-lines, space-lines or time-lines.
But just like tools (e.g. a hammer) that one can used to built, say, a house, they are only of temporary use...: when the house is finished, one can let go of the tools. In fact, instead of a hammer one could have used a nail-gun. Or, instead of building with wood and nails, one could have used mud and straw. In this example 'habitation' is essential, NOT the type of house and NOT what was used to build it with, e.g. tools and materials.
And so it is with the number zero and the geometry used in the process of 'figuring' out classical physics, quantum mechanics (in terms of matrices), etc. They are indeed handy - but still temporary - tools to understand a grander mystery: the universe. It does that 'one linear dimension out of a possible twelve' at a time.
Once, though, one comprehends the integrated Unity and Wholeness (even if diversified), one can let go of the zero, the notion of origin of curse also that temporarily handy tool of geometry.
Although in geometry one will discover that the 0 for zero actually leads to the O for Origin, unfortunately even the word Origin is unfortunate... as though IT (whatever IT may be) started somewhere (?) and at some point (?) in time.
Even the idea of dimensions (any number of them, even my proposed twelve) is by definition and will always be 'h y p o t h e t i c a l' as using them is AGAIN only useful in figuring out 'f u n c t i o n' (Descartes knew that). (Compare function to habitation in the example of building a house.)
Ergo, the closer one comes to grasping and more fully experiencing the 'wonder of it all', the closer one comes to letting go of (or idolizing) the tools and hypotheses that helped one to more fully grasp, experience and appreciate whatever one is (TAT TUAM ASI) and whatever all this is (OM TAT SAT).
** String Theory is currently (at the most up) to eleven dimensions - not twelve as I propose with '12 D space-time theory'.
* The problem of misunderstanding the notion of 0 - Zero (i.e. the assumption that zero represents the physical reality of 'nothing') started when people interpreted the Indian invention of that hypothetical 'zero' as though it was a real number... as though something like "nothing" could exist.
Well, it cannot...
If it did exist, it would not be called "nothing".
So, even if very handy, the use of 'zero' is just an arithmetic tool, only temporarily useful on one-dimensional (linear) number-lines, space-lines or time-lines.
But just like tools (e.g. a hammer) that one can used to built, say, a house, they are only of temporary use...: when the house is finished, one can let go of the tools. In fact, instead of a hammer one could have used a nail-gun. Or, instead of building with wood and nails, one could have used mud and straw. In this example 'habitation' is essential, NOT the type of house and NOT what was used to build it with, e.g. tools and materials.
And so it is with the number zero and the geometry used in the process of 'figuring' out classical physics, quantum mechanics (in terms of matrices), etc. They are indeed handy - but still temporary - tools to understand a grander mystery: the universe. It does that 'one linear dimension out of a possible twelve' at a time.
Once, though, one comprehends the integrated Unity and Wholeness (even if diversified), one can let go of the zero, the notion of origin of curse also that temporarily handy tool of geometry.
Although in geometry one will discover that the 0 for zero actually leads to the O for Origin, unfortunately even the word Origin is unfortunate... as though IT (whatever IT may be) started somewhere (?) and at some point (?) in time.
Even the idea of dimensions (any number of them, even my proposed twelve) is by definition and will always be 'h y p o t h e t i c a l' as using them is AGAIN only useful in figuring out 'f u n c t i o n' (Descartes knew that). (Compare function to habitation in the example of building a house.)
Ergo, the closer one comes to grasping and more fully experiencing the 'wonder of it all', the closer one comes to letting go of (or idolizing) the tools and hypotheses that helped one to more fully grasp, experience and appreciate whatever one is (TAT TUAM ASI) and whatever all this is (OM TAT SAT).
** String Theory is currently (at the most up) to eleven dimensions - not twelve as I propose with '12 D space-time theory'.
No comments:
Post a Comment