How was the beginning?
The initiative behind this work was another known theory entitled "The Unified Field Theory" that hasn't been solved yet, that tries to unify between the nuclear forces, electromagnetic, and gravitational fields in one aspect, and the unification of all physical phenomena in another aspect. That is by trying to find out a law that governs all the phenomena of nature in the forms of: energy, matter, and radiation. The general purpose of this theory was the deduction of all the physical phenomena from a very few principles.
From that emerged the theory of opposites, but in a more general framework, since it includes all the sectors of the human knowledge not only the physical one.
Moreover there were many other notices that were behind the main idea:
* The known mathematical sign rules includes both positive and negative signs, so why it does not include a neutral one? And what the meaning of these rules and their usage?
* There was a strong belief that the summation of equal positive and negative charges should not be zero. Since zero has no physical meaning, and there must be another language to express about that.
* The mathematical rule: – x - = + does not have an inverse form which should be: +x+=- to achieve order and symmetry.
From these simple notices; the concept of "state" appears as a common factor between them, which was a motive to investigate in this direction.
Euclid had established his geometry theoretically without need to resort to the real world, and this is the secret of the strength of Euclidean geometry… it is a mental discovery. What allowed for that is the availability of sufficient axioms or postulates, although these principles are existing not only on the realm of geometry but also on all the levels of the human knowledge, but nobody has succeeded up till now to discover it or even asserted on the right approach to establish a mental theory to dismantles and unify all the human knowledge. What is going on here is a mental discovery of the first caliber. It is all just simple logical principles that govern the entire universe and it is lurking hidden there and waiting to be discovered by someone.
This part of the theory is mainly focused on the meaning of the known sign rules that includes only two states (+, -), and it discusses their deduction and implications. Moreover, it deduces the relationship between three states (+, - , ±) and explains their meanings. The second part of the theory deals with the deduction of four and five states and the general methods for deducing the relationship between any number of states using computer programs and the consequences of the qualitative treatment on the human knowledge in general.
Generalization and Voidness
The universal theory or what is known as the theory of everything has a bad reputation (at least in my opinion, and I hope this one not to be so) that is due to many reasons. No theory could prove what it really says; and there is no definite known one that rivals the others or scientifically accepted. The theory that includes the solution of all dilemmas tells us nothing, exactly as we say that god is the main reason behind all phenomena. In other words if unification is abbreviated to only one statement or a single law it would not absolutely interpret anything.
The more generalization being there, a lesser words are used in return, so it tells us nothing. But if that what goes on here, hence the theory of opposites as it gets more general it says nothing, this an inevitable fact.
However, generalization traditionally is seen as a central aim of science where it imparts an overall perspective to see what is in between the boundaries of all the human knowledge.
Generalization requires abstraction; this means the applicability is irrelevant to a certain subject (which sure has no relevance to induction in any meaning – where the final results are astonishing where induction will be nonsense and our world is very simple and very well organized).
Generalization is simply the process of accruing the diversity to unity, and sure the opposite is awkward. We are looking for a final unified reason behind all interpretations.
Here, the main idea behind generalization is using states, so comes the theory of opposites to fulfill this mission, where opposites are an elementary expression about states in their simplest and purest form.
Generalization as will be seen can be done only through qualitative treatment; that is because qualities or states are the most fundamental, broadest, and the most extreme elementary categorization.
The methodology of generalization is not our target at all, because it is definitely beyond question is done through states. It is all based on pure logic. If it would not be pure logic and logically deduced it would not be general.
Concepts of Opposites in Ancient and Modern Times
We find the ideas of opposites in Hegel's philosophy under three definitions: thesis, antithesis, and compound thesis under the title "Ideal dialectic", then Marx tackled it under the title " Dialectical logic and conflict of opposites", but it is all older than that, so we find Aristotle saying: "Harmony is a mixture and union of opposites", also we find "Anksageors" talking about the existence and his trails to find a "unifying principle" that interprets every part of the universe and governs all phenomena, and he considered the complementarity of alive and non-alive matter, with what he called "the unifying matter" that is innate and immortal, and has organic properties, as a basis for unification.
Also we find the Goethe theory about colors that states that colors are created by mixing of dark and light, but he did not depend on mathematical treatment anyway, whereby, mathematical treatment converts light science into accurate science, but Goethe theory considered unscientific because it could not allow tighten control of visual phenomena, so it is scientifically rejected, but was beneficial especially for art and artists. Also, Niels Bohr dealt with idea of opposites through the "complementarity principle" considering matter and waviness complementing each other.
Also we find ancient Pythagoreans considered that number 5 is the symbol of marriage, considering number 2 is an even or feminine, but 3 is odd or masculine, and their summation is 5 which is the symbol of marriage. They did not consider 3 to be the symbol of marriage as a result from 1 and 2, because one is considered the symbol of causality and it is the essence of invariance, so they selected the next two numbers.
Also, the wise Chinese "I Ching" considered number one is not the first in the series … but it is the center of the universe, and simple numbers like 2, 3, 4 are near to the center, also they considered 2 is the symbol of earth, 3 is the symbol of sky, 4 and 5 determines their right positions, but 6, 7, 8, 9 represent the main points in the cycles of phenomena. Also we find Carl Young trying to give psychological explanation of the ancient people believing in such ideas as intuitive matters.
Some writers consider thinking in dual like thinking: day-night, love-hate, positive-negative … to be very queer and others consider it as insanity and eccentricity. To understand this outlook it is only necessary to enter into that condition of mind, which takes any analogy to represent a real bond. This odd and even, male and female, light and darkness, straight and curved, all become expressions of some profound principle of opposition which informs the world. Whatever, we will see through this theory the extent to which this outlook can be true or false, it is all depends upon the directors where from the same script only one film version can succeed and all the others fail, but it seems that there is something deep in our souls and longing for this kind of simple correlations.
Returning back to the Pharaohs civilization, we find the ideas of duality or opposition is the overwhelming trend in their philosophical attitude, whether ancient Egyptians or Greek philosophers, it is the dominant ideas. Giza pyramids are considered the ultimate science they achieved using the concept of opposites; and this is what already said as an interpretation of building the pyramids as an excerpt of their civilization.
All civilizations made respectable stature for number one, differentiating it from other numbers, and what is written about that is really enormous, but no one could not formulate it scientifically. Moreover, all these civilizations granted man a honorable estate, and they talked about soul and its immortality, about harnessing human ability far from matter.
It was strange considering man as the center of universe to be sanctification for him as all religions states, but Copernican revolution came to consider the earth is not the center of universe. But we do not know the limitations of our universe to assert or refute our position. Recently it is known that our universe is completely symmetrical from all directions as if we are in the center of it.
Also there are some attitudes that stand besides the concept of opposites, declaring that the way to an Arabic philosophy is dualism, and it is the way to accommodate between the western science and the oriental Arabic heritage. What has been written is enormous, but it is unscientifically formulated, it is just a peel in a very deep scientific subject.
What has been dealt with in the known philosophies related to opposites is not scientific or sustains any scientific treatment, but dealt with spiritual, social, philosophical, and political aspects. What this theory trying to accomplish; is putting this concept in a scientific form, by imparting it the mathematical treatment indicating its principles and rules.
A very narrow and limited viewpoint when talking about duality or opposites is discussing the claim that body and mind are quite separate and that mind is necessarily immaterial, but during my investigation in opposites, such as this point was never discussable, because it is metaphysical and has no importance or has secondary value, and we gain nothing from it, it is non-scientific.
The Issue of Qualitative and Quantitative
The general scientific trend is that as there becomes more advancement and progress; the qualitative thinking disappears and is replaced by quantities. For example the difference between acids and alkaline has been discovered to be just a degree of concentration of the hydrogen ions, and hence this distinction has no implication at all. Nevertheless, the effect of both is different or opposite, then how we can consider them just a degree of something quantitative whatever it is?!!!.
It is like talking about summer, winter, autumn, and spring and considering this division is irrelevant, and considering the measure of temperature is enough and this distinction has no importance.
Moreover, the same viewpoint can be applied to the four directions (East – West – North – South) that can be replaced by measures of degrees. But degrees must be referenced to a certain arbitrary position likely to be east. But we will encounter a need to distinguish the vertical and the other perpendicular position, thus we have to establish the axial system. So adopting quantities without qualities is not acceptable. But the most subtle thing that we will deduce from this theory is that the qualitative is the basis and quantitative has no meaning without it.
Without any doubt qualitative is more essential than quantitative – as we all know that the small good amount is better than the large bad ones. Quality is a meaning that can be retained without quantity – but quantity must be associated with quality, because "qualitative" is a classifying process. So when we say quantity and quality, this is in itself a qualitative classification that assures the generality of the qualitative and it is being the basis of interpretation and categorization.
Quantity in its essence has no meaning – and to get a meaning and significance; the quantitative becomes mere a nomination for the qualitative – in other words: when the number of states becomes too huge, we can't use words like positive, negative and neutral, but we rely upon mush more names which are the numeric values as an expression about states corresponding to each value.
The main workings of the computer system depend upon states. When the electric circuit is closed it represents the state of "one", and when it is open it represents the state of "zero". Moreover, when computers do the mathematical operations it is done through these states. This means that quantities have been translated to qualities, i.e. states and certain relative positions.
Not enough to wipe out right and left, but also we must negate positive and negative from numeric values, also there is no need for positive and negative charges, and since computers coverts all its mathematical operations into summation, there no need for the other operations, also no need for subtraction in opposition to addition, or multiplication in opposition to division. Upon that we should negate all the other qualitative concepts!!!
What has been written about the relation between quality and quantity is enormous, but it does not absolutely clarify this relation scientifically in a strict treatment. The theory of opposites has analyzed the matters to its finest level, and mathematically formulated it with determining the origin of the mathematical concepts we are using in today's science according to the concepts of opposites.
The Known Approaches about Unification of Sciences
The known ideas about unification are very far from the right approach to unification. I think the approach to this has no other alternatives except what will be explained here about qualities and states.
The known traditional unification of sciences and how it should be done can be summarized in the following:
Sciences are divided into three main groups: natural sciences (physics- chemistry-biology–physiology-….), mathematical sciences (geometry– arithmetic–algebra–mechanics…), and human sciences (psychology– history –ethics–politics– economy-…).
Some modern philosophers consider the idea of the unified science can be achieved through integration of methodology, i.e. through union of deduction and induction. Since mathematical sciences are deductive while natural sciences are inductive, both of them can exchange their methodologies (this is too strange, what can we gain from mutual exchanging of methods, if this is already can be possible?!), but more logically it is done by using the same principles, postulates, and interpretation rules. Is unifying methodologies means unifying explanations?!
Another viewpoint says that, since the need of sciences for the results of each other can result in more specialization. In other words, sciences already have become more integrated (but this implies more dissection and analysis not unification, which is contradictory and far from unification). It simply means the increase of the number of sciences as a result of common points between every two sciences, but is that makes them one science or makes them much more? It is really strange to be considered so with increasing the specification.
Some of the examples that are a result of merging two sciences: Physiological chemistry. This science originated as a result of developing physiology till it reached a stage to need chemical analysis to explain the phenomena of physiology. Also we find organic chemistry as a born science of chemistry and biology after the advancements in cell studies, till it became a must to get help from chemistry to understand changes that occur in cells. Also integration has been established between physics and biology through physical biology, also between physics and mathematics and so on.
It is evident that as sciences become more advanced and its specialization advance too, a more need appears to get help from other sciences. But this is not integration or complementation, but on the contrary it is dissecting, decomposing, and disassembling.
Yes, arithmetic is more general than geometry, physics is more general than chemistry, chemistry is more general than biology, and each science makes use of what is more general. The issue is not to discover or establish a science as a reference, but is to find the mental principles by which the real unifying viewpoint can be attained.
Accordingly, when talking about generality of sciences; we find the science of logic at the start, and at the end come the human sciences that are less general. Is that mean we have to refer to logic? This is in itself very strange; do we doubt that our judges are logical without a need for logic science or a need for it somehow? Is every logic is pertaining to the logic science? So, referencing all sciences to logic is illogical procedure.
There are arguments that logical analysis ends up to the unified science, depending on that all sciences would end up to one common method. The subject of the science of logic is searching for formal judgments and it does not have any relation to the physical world – thereby, what will we gain from referring all sciences to logic, whereas they are natural sciences that study real existence and nature? What will they gain when referenced to formal measures? This is in itself illogical talk at all.
The concepts of opposites would be able to make sciences do not depend on each other, but to make them all depend on the same general principles. The target is to find the common origin of them all; not the dependency of one on another, but its dependency on the same principle, and this is the real and right meaning of unification.
The main objective of studying the opposites is to find those basic principles, yes principles not axioms, not postulates, not propositions and even not laws – because principles are the starting points and elementary statements on which every fact is established (The Mathematical Principles of the Philosophy of Nature).
The dichotomy of cells and the science of heritage are in a deep need for theoretical scientific basis to explain them – any arbitrary look not even profound one indicates that the concepts of duality and opposites are predominant, also in the world of tiny particles too. Duality is deep in the whole existence; tangible or non-tangible; from smallest units to the most sophisticated structures.
The issue is that nobody could realize that in duality inhabits the secret of human knowledge unification, and to be sure about that, and to be sure it is the only right approach. The concept itself is not new, but nobody evaluated it as it deserves, and could not know in what direction can be used and how to exploit it to the most extent. Anyhow, the most important thing is how to formulate it in a mathematical form, namely, to formulate it symbolically.
Unification of the Human Knowledge
If the whole nature is not one unity; there would be clashes, contradictions, and discrepancies that can't be resolved in all the branches of the human knowledge, and thereafter it becomes no need for scientific investigation. If the whole existence is not one unified unity in its essence; there would be absence of interpretation, any meaning of reasonability, consistency, and mind.
The most general classification and the most absolutely broadest is the division into two opposites. The idea of unification in one aspect relies upon the formal correspondence between a set of sign rules (or general principles of opposites) and the phenomena; then through these rules all phenomena can be studied and investigated.
Each science has its own categories – for example, geometry deals with concepts like: angle, straight line, complement angle, acute angle, parallelism, intersection and others. Whereas, physics deals with: mass, distance, time, corpuscular, waviness, electrons, protons etc. Whereas chemistry deals with: acids, alkaline, properties of materials and its reactions. While psychology deals with personal traits like extrovert, introvert, sadism, masochism etc.
Additionally, this accounts for the absence of the unified science; since each science has its own categories, thus unification entails the implementation of general categories for them all. The basic category that achieves that is the concept of "state", since it is the most general category, and consequently the concepts of dualism, neutrality, action, reaction, positivism, negativism etc... are used.
As mention before, some of the geometrical concepts are: acute angle – perpendicular angle – intersection – half bisecting – length – area – volume – ratio – similarity – angle – diameter – circumference – point – triangle – square and so on. All the geometrical theorems statements include these nominations, so, if we could determine the states or qualitative rules for these concepts, we would be able to deduce the geometrical theorems. Noting that each concept almost has an opposite; and the most important is that these qualitative rules would apply to the other subjects, for nothing but the whole existence is one unit governed by the same law and logic. Is not anyone wondered how there is an algebraic and geometrical solutions for the same problems? and how this coincidence took place without our intervention? the answer is simply; that is because the whole existence is established on consistency and non-contradiction without any talent or intervention of our own side. So, these principles are there, and we must stress to look for them through this approach.
The scientific fact that "all metals expand by heating" or the mathematical fact that "the sum of interior angles of a triangle add up to 180" or the philosophical fact that "circulation is false" all these facts and others in spite of their relation to different realms; they all can be governed by general concepts or principles to explain them, and also to deduce them all.
Consequently, what are the concepts or categories adopted by the theory of opposites? Is it mentality and matter, or subjectivism and objectivism? Or is it action, place, and time? Or is it cause and effect? Thereafter the categories of each science determine its capabilities, extent, usefulness, and generality.
The objective of the theory of opposites is to unify different phenomena – and the meaning of unification is to express them all through one law, principle, or a rule to interpret them all. It is expected from any general theory to achieve many purposes: to discover new facts, to handle known facts in a simpler way; moreover it is considered a methodology to solve all issues of different kinds.
The main idea of the theory depends upon giving the concept of quality or state (which is represented by opposites) a scientific treatment, and this is in itself imparts it importance – because the scientific methods are mainly based on quantities and measurements – any phenomenon is considered scientific only if it is measurable, but we will find this theory is a dramatic change in this attitude – and all dependence will be on quality. Furthermore, even if science already includes qualitative aspects represented by describing the phenomena or categorization, but this is mere a superficial dependence over quality and all dependence is on quantities, but both methodologies must be used and what is not achieved by one, is the achieved by the other. Science can't be established on one opposite without the other, or one concept without its opposite that complements it. Without any exaggeration the half of science is missing, and the way to it is the theory of opposites.
Well, the basic idea of the theory is that the elements of any phenomenon are just a set of states, and if we formulated the general laws or principles that control states, we will be able to apply them on any other phenomenon or system.
Generality is the basis through which all other ideal adjectives can be attained like simplicity and clarity, and the importance of the unification can be summarized in the following points:
* Getting ride of unnecessary ramifications of knowledge.
* Attaining the ultimate truth.
* Discovering the common origin of the whole existence.
* Simplifying all facts.
* Indicating the real relations between entities.
* Unifying sciences, philosophy, and religion in one consistent whole.
* Establishing the standard methodology for handling problems and solving them through the concepts of opposites.
* Approaching to the truth norm which is the final target.
* Enabling the deduction of all facts theoretically, since truth is inherent in itself without reference to the physical world.
* Ability to interpret the universal constants that governs the universe.
* Arranging the human knowledge.
The Inherent Unifying Secret in Duality
If the basis of interpretation is not in duality, then it must be in unity – and if it is in duality, it must be in unity too, that is because duality can't be recognized except by its opposition to unity. If both is rejected, then multiplicity will be in charge, but is that will be acceptable? If unification is tackled by multiplicity, this would be refused because it must be assigned to the most abbreviated forms (which is actually the literal meaning of unification) then we would adhere to duality and unity, where both represent trinity- so it seems we need three states at least to start with.
We have to ask ourselves, why does computer system depend upon the states of one and zero, which are two opposing states? The answer is that it is the simplest situation to represent anything- from whiteboard and black pencil (or the reverse) the history of the universe can be written from the beginning till its end, with this simple situation the manufacturing of electric circuits is cheaper and its design is easier.
Really, computers can be manufactured using components of three states instead of two – which is all right – but this is not preferred. The secret is that the tri-counting system is the most economic, but circuits depending on three states are more difficult to design, since it needs elements with three states. This unique characteristic of the trio has great significance which should not be overlooked without more investigation, and it has its qualitative implication that can't be overlooked.
Subsequently, duality is the fundamental concept of the whole universe and the secret of both its motion and stability. The truth is so simple and clear, that is when multiplicity is attributed to duality and unity with all their meanings. The fragments of the human knowledge have to be rearranged and what refuses to get under this content is not true. The judge on any right fact is easy and clear; it would be evident from its consistency with the other facts, from the general image that isolates what is unnecessary, and from scrutinizing facts through opposites.
The concept of duality is not new, but nobody evaluated it with the right criteria, and no one could not realize its importance and its ability, and in what it can be utilized, even could not realize how to achieve unification through it, and how it is the only approach for that. So, we have to press on it till the last drop. It was there inherent in the intuitiveness of the precursors in the ancient civilizations; and deep here in our spirit and in the spirit of all levels of universe.
The certainty is accompanied by simplicity and clarity, since any complications are not certain- or let's say that certainty increases with the increase of simplicity, since we will be sure and have not lost our way through the jungle of complex deductions, where any complexities make us lost in the middle of wrong deductions. The concept of duality is that general and simple one; it is the most important, most prevailing, and most essential one.