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.
No comments:
Post a Comment