Ah yes...

[novapsyche]

I almost forgot: I wanted to describe my mathematical cosmology.

It's a pretty simple description, actually.

God is the All and the Naught--in integers, 1 and 0. I see the universe as these two numbers divided against themselves.

On the one hand, you have 0 divided by 1. This yields 0: the Naught devours the All, and you are again left with 0.

On the other hand, you have 1 divided by 0. This yields infinity: the All sublimates the Naught, and you are left with any and every number possible. This infinity, this All, this Unity can be described as 1.

Thus, when both operations are executed, you are once again left with 1 and 0.

[This is apparently similar to a cosmology conceived by Leibnitz (the person who formalized the rules of calculus); but I came to this conclusion independently before I learned that such an idea was not original.]

The operator, the dividing line (/), represents the Logos, that principle which borders and thus connects both these diametrical absolutes.


It is my speculation that the Big Bang, when looked at in a nonlinear fashion, could be seen as still occurring. If time is seen as an illusion, then the Big Bang as occuring now is easily understood. It is my further speculation that this side of the Big Bang is the 1, and 0 is what is on "the other side" of the Big Bang--that is, a huge nothingness. It is this nothingness that ever feeds this material universe.

Comments

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I gotta say, I don't understand your binary description, but this statement It is my speculation that the Big Bang, when looked at in a nonlinear fashion, could be seen as still occurring is very meaningful to me. I don't know if time is an illusion or not, but the way I look at it, the universe is kindof like an onion with the big bang in the center and the different layers of skins (infinitely thin) represent time. Just because I only can experience time and space relative to, say, the 15 billionth skin from the center, doesn't mean that the entire onion isn't doesn't exist.

I don't know if that makes sense to your theory... I think I'll post it in my journal. :)

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying, I think. So, if the universe is one big onion, is the Big Bang the empty center?

Re:

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Not empty. Eternally spewing out the universe, though not really... just constantly in the state of beginning... I don't know... I've thought that maybe it's all some kind of closed system where black holes simply funnel everything back to the beginning... but nothing ever really has to change if you look at it from the outside, it's just that we're inside experiencing what we see as motion in time through the layers of skins. It's just a kind of picture that I have in my head... taken to extremes though, it's absolutely deterministic.

[vaxjedi]

On the other hand, you have 1 divided by 0. This yields infinity

As I understand it, 1 divided by 0 is not infinity, it is undefined. The limit as 1/x approaches 0 is infinity, but 1/x itself isn't infinity, it is nonsensical.

This infinity, this All, this Unity can be described as 1.

This implies that infinity is unified whole. I don't think, from a numbers perspective, that you can assume that. There are ALL sorts of different and distinct infinities out there: the infinity of the integers, of the real numbers, of the complex numbers, of the rational numbers, of the irrational, of the primes, etc. While often interconnected, they are not unified, really. You might be able to argue that each infinity is a set, and this part of a whole, but not all of those infinities are the same. Even in encompassing infinity, we have difference and divergence.

On another note, 0 and 1 imply 2. 2 implies 3 by induction. And thus 3 implies 4. and so on. Binary implies multiplicity of many levels. So I can see the binary as a generative concept. In terms of mathematical cosmolgy, it doesn't make sense to me that we start at oneness. Any concept of void implies duality. If there was ever something, there was not-something, thus there being duality. And we fall into multiplicity by induction once again. If there was ever oneness without void, you can't go any farther.

It is my speculation that the Big Bang, when looked at in a nonlinear fashion, could be seen as still occurring.

Well, in the fact that the universe is still exploding, that makes sense.
Also an interesting thing I read is that from the quantum perspective, each and every place in space-time has the same amount of space-time on every side of it. Thus, no matter where-when you are, you are at the ceneter of space-time. Space-time has no beginning or end, just middle.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, 1 divided by 0 is not infinity, it is undefined. The limit as 1/x approaches 0 is infinity, but 1/x itself isn't infinity, it is nonsensical.

That makes sense, if "infinity" is supposed to a limitless concept.

I was thinking about this in bed last night. If 1/0 were allowed; then one could take the reciprocal and multiply them together. On the one hand, you could have 1*0 on the top, and 0*1 on the bottom, and you'd end up with 0/0. And since any number divided by itself is 1, then somehow you'd be able to get something out of nothing.

On the other hand, you could use cancellation; then you get the same thing. 0 cancelled by 0 would paradoxically yield 1, and 1 over 1 is 1.

So I can see why mathematically 1 (or, I guess, any number) cannot be allowed to be divided by 0.

In terms of mathematical cosmolgy, it doesn't make sense to me that we start at oneness. Any concept of void implies duality.

This is partially why I describe my cosmology as a dualistic monism.

from the quantum perspective, each and every place in space-time has the same amount of space-time on every side of it. Thus, no matter where-when you are, you are at the ceneter of space-time. Space-time has no beginning or end, just middle.

That is, no past or future, just an eternal Now? :)

[vaxjedi]

It's not that any cannot be allowed to be divide by zero, it's that it just is impossible. You can't divide something into zero parts.

[droid-1.livejournal.com]

This is cool. I have been thinking along similar lines, I will make a post in my journal.
My thought was in consideration of patterns. Once you go from one, which could be considered to be "unity," to any other number, you have established the pattern for infinity.