So a friend of mine and I were discussing a model of the universe that supports duality last night. It started out with, "So, for something to exist, there must also be something that doesn't-exist to compare it against." It seemed to make sense. For "thing" to exist, there must also be a "not-thing." (NOT to be confused with NOTHING. We'll get to this later.) Otherwise "thing" by itself would have no meaning at all. But then he said, "Yes, but since there are degrees (of thing/not-thinginess), wouldn't there also be a single mid-point where everything was neutral?" And I said, "You're right. There would have to be a point in between which was the opposite of itself." This seemed to make sense also. For there to be "thing," there has to be "not-thing," but there is also a constant "neither-thing-nor-not-thing," which is also "both-thing-and-not-thing." This was a confusing concept to grasp, but think in terms of light. Black is no light at all, whereas white is all light. By combining the two, you get grey, which is neither black nor white, but is also both at the same time. Necessarily, grey can not exist by itself. Neither can black or white. Now, although there are varying shades of grey, there is only ONE shade that, when inverted, is itself. This is the axis over which inversions take place, and can be reached by adding one extreme to another (like +1 and -1). We discussed this for a while, trying to prove or disprove it in various ways. My friend would say, "I remain convinced that the opposite of something is also a something, no matter what label is applied to it." This seemed to hold true. Black and White are both graspable concepts, and although opposites, both are "there". We were eventually stumped by the question of, "Then what is the opposite of EVERYTHING?" It should, simply enough, have been NOTHING. Right? However, this quickly falls apart. Since NOTHING is nonexistent, that would mean that EVERYTHING is by itself, thereby disproving duality, which I believe to be impossible. At this point we pretty much left off, since the concept of NOTHING is incomprehensible. It was a lot of fun though. I'm eager to hear everyone's take on this! I'm sure some of you more experienced mind-travellers have thought of this (or something along these lines) before.
I tried to apply this to the number line. Assume for a second that this axis you speak of is the number line. What if negative infinity was complete nothing and positive infinity was everything. Zero would be the center... the point at which inversion takes place. 0 * -1 is still 0... just like the inversion of grey is still grey. I think we can agree that infinity is everything. Its not a single point on the number line, but instead it is a concept that can be difficult to define. So the "opposite" of this "value" would have to be negative infinity. I believe I agree with this. How could you define complete nothingness? Its extremely difficult, because as soon as you define it... it exists. It seems impossible to fully comprehend. This applies to negative infinity as well. What is the greatest negative value that could ever possibly exist? Well, you cant exactly define that... much in the same way you cant define absolute nothingness. I need to stew on this for a bit longer...
I feel that though infinity is indeed everything, it is also nothing. If everything is infinite, so is nothing. Everything has varying degrees of substance and meaning and would be impossible to measure on a numerical scale. The concept of duality is moot to me, considering that many things do not have an opposite, only things that are similiar and things that are completly unrelated. What is the opposite of an orange? What is the counterpoint of 3? Nothing can be measured in any kind of tangible way. You can say God, you can say math, it's all really bullshit in my mind. (Not to say that the pursuit of meaning and knowledge is pointless, this is only my conclusion thus far)
Well Math and God dont exactly go hand in hand when it comes to understanding existence. Math is a language used to comprehend form, shape, and logic, while God or at least Mother Nature, seems to be creating through some sort of interconnected geometric patterns which as of yet, are far from being defined. First of all we cant exactly give any mechanical principles to Nature, or the universe, without first understanding what kind of model we are actually dealing with. What if the universe is a sort of mobius strip? Or a donut shape wrapping around itself outside of the core? Or an infinite chaotic expansion? Or a limited expansion which is only waiting to eventually collapse in upon itself? I mean we dont even know if infinity exists in terms of matter and energy, that's just how it appears to many of us at the moment. Until we know what the form and shape of the universe is, we cant be too sure how it operates and what physical or even metaphysical reality is to us. We know what we absorb through our 5 senses and the bottom parts of a higher mind, but illusion is just as much a part of this spectrum you guys are laying out as is truth. Though in a simple way I agree. You have positive, negative, and neautral. Positive attracts you to neutrality, negative repels you towards illusion. But positivity only arrives after the negation of all that is not positive, so before we come to neutrality we seem to first have to experience the best (or worst) of both worlds. God Bless -
Things like that are the very reason this model should exist. If the counterpoint to 3 is Not-3 (negative 3), then wouldn't the counterpoint of an orange be not-an-orange? How can an orange have an opposite? It doesn't try to assert itself in any fashion (unlike numbers) and therefore wouldn't an orange be closer to the zero than anything else on the planet? The answer, of course, is yes. If one were an orange, or a rock, or a piece of paper, one would have long ago achieved what we humans call enlightenment: which is simply to stop flailing and let yourself be a part of the universe along with everything else. I think we should all follow the orange's example
Well if I could reference nassim haramein... He's a physicist which postulates, the black, the vacuum of space, is actually the most dense thing in existence, as in the black holds infinite energy. Then white, light, radiates out from the black, as a lesser level of energy, a lesser level of density. By this, the 'vacuum', blackness, isn't really non-existant, rather, since the vaccuum is of equal, infinite, density throughout the entire universe, you never get a glimpse outside the vacuum, so even though your constantly submerged in infinite energy and density you don't notice it. Sort of how, you wouldn't notice yourself submerged in water if you have been submerged your whole life. Which is why the vaccuum, black, to those in it seems non-existent, when really it contains all of existence. And then the only reason you see the light and energy which radiates out of the vacuum is because they have changed their energetic nature to be different from infinite vacuum, to hold less energy than infinity within the vacuum. This creates a whole bunch of interesting contexts I think. By this, 'Something' isn't 'some THING', but rather, it's merely a lower energized form of everything, of the infinite energy in the vacuum. So there isn't ever 'nothing', but rather different energetic deviations from everything. And as for philosophical duality. I like mine to be Physical and Non-Physical.
Relayer, I was not trying to say that they go hand in hand. In all actuality, I was trying to illustrate the profound differences in the ways that people attempt to explain the universe. As to your response Jimm, I think that was the jist of what I was trying to say. Did this discussion stem from another theory? I'm sure that I've read of a duality theory, the same if not remarkably similiar to the one you described. Then again, there are no unique ideas.
It actually started with something I said tripping some months ago... something about "how would we know (x) without something to juxtapose against it?" Although I do believe I've heard some aspects of it before, like the similarity of the whole "zero being both +x and -x at the same time," and some parts of quantum theory. But as you said, there are no truly unique ideas. P.S. If anyone DOES happen to find a link to a theory that's the same as/similar to this one, I'd love to read it.
but where x+ ends is where x- begins It's not duality, as in two points. It's just one point, one circle, one loop. Marking a beginning and an end is always only a singular temporary snapshot of the grand flow, it is always temporary. All notions of duality crumble under the flow of time. And honestly, if I had to divide the one circle into sections, it would not be two, it would be six.
Color perception is only a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The maximum difference between colors is only the frequency change of a couple hundred nanometers. Human eyes are effectively blind to 99.9% of what is going on around them. What people see as black has lots of other forms of e.m. radiation, they just can't see so it is not nothing. White is just the evenly combined frequencies of the narrow band of frequencies that the human eye can perceive.
I think I grasp what you're getting at. Like a sine wave is created by a single point traveling in a circle over time. However, this circle would have to be moving over a single axis (its midpoint), which would imply duality, would it not? Peak and trough, as a waveform has. And although if you add together each point on a sine wave you DO get zero (assuming no positive or negative shift), this doesn't change the fact that the wave, with all of its duality, has existed. And also... why six?
Yea Ry, why six? Dont you know that the Tathagatas reign in all ten quarter's of the universe? :tongue: And firstdeath I apologize for misunderstanding your post, I was in a bit of a rush when I ran this thread down yesterday. It's just that I get caught up so often in trying to discuss creation with people who say that God speaks in Mathematics when it should be common sense that it is we who speak in mathematics in order to try and comprehend the essence of reality and more often everything that is a condensation, or rather a precipitation, from the inside out to be measured. Even meditation comes to be understood to many as to 'measure'. To sit and measure. Does that really make sense? I really doubt God wants us to measure our existance. I mean who am I to say what God wants or does not want us to do? But it just doesnt make much sense because we can only measure that which is observable by the senses alone, and not that which is transcendental. Anyway, sorry for the mistake on my part. God Bless -
I think the duality theory is beautiful, though confusing. I think that when you come to the point of talking about nothing and everything it simply cant exist. Nothing and everything is different to light and dark, where light and dark exist, everything and nothing is are just concepts that humans have come up with. When you say nothing, it can never really exist, there never really is nothing, no one can ever have nothing, no one can ever be or feel nothing. Which must mean that everything doesnt exist either, which is true, because no one has a grasp of what everything is, everything is an impossibility that can never exist.
I think this type of theory is something that only human minds can think of. For example, the power of the human brain is borderline incomprehensible at times. I thought about this the other day, like do plants or animals know that they will die? Humans are born and at a certain age learn that death is a part of life and everyone dies blah blah. However, if you think about death its kind of a wierd thing because being 'dead' is basically when your brain is off, i think we can all agree on that. But how can your brain understand or possess the power to think about itself not working? It basically just doesnt think but its thinking about not thinking so how does that work? hahah im sorry if that confuses people. and about that orange thing, how do you know everything has a opposite? opposite is just a word in human language with meanings that we made up. Other things that exist in this world don't really know the meaning of opposite.
Who knows really! I mean psychedelic plants exist right? I dont think that's by accident. They surely have at the LEAST a collective awareness of existence. Why do fruits taste so sweet? Why are magic mushrooms so euphoric? And opiates? Cocaine? Marijuana? Being that we are born out of and die back into Mother Nature, surely Her evolution is all inclusive.
I have two words to contribute to this thread that reference the saying of much more than I could hope to: Walter Russel.
True, it is impossible to "know" that something has an "opposite," but think of it like this. Would words exist without something to write them on? Without a medium through which to express them? Would "a rock" exist if everything in our experience was "rock?" Just as rygoody said, "you wouldn't notice yourself submerged in water if you had been submerged your whole life." You wouldn't have a concept of "water" because that would imply the existence of "that which is not water." All of duality theory can (basically) be summed up in that concept. Btw rainbowgeek, that Walter Russell is absolutely fascinating. I'll have to read some of his books!
