Going Beyond Counting

Pi

A counting number is based on the idea of a unit. A unit could be a goat, a house, a cookie or anything.

A UNIT is what we count one at a time. A COUNTING NUMBER is how many units we have counted.

The term “fraction” comes from the concept of a “broken piece.” A unit may be broken into pieces and these pieces may then be counted. For example, we may break a cookie into 4 equal parts. Each part is called a quarter. We may then count 3 of those parts as three-quarters of the cookie.

A FRACTION is part of a unit, which, in its turn, may act as a smaller unit. Thus, both numbers and fractions are based on the idea of counting.

The Brotherhood established by Pythagoras believed that by understanding the relationships between numbers they could uncover the spiritual secrets of the universe and bring themselves closer to the gods. Today that basic search continues in terms of finding that one equation that would explain all universal phenomena.

In particular the Brotherhood focused on the study of rational numbers as described in the essay Numbers & Consciousness. Rational numbers depend on the idea of ratio. A ratio tells you how many times a number is to another number in terms of the same unit. If Johnny is 10 years old and his father is 40 years old, then his father is four times as old as Johnny. The ratio of father’s age to Johnny’s age is 4 to 1. If Johnny’s mother is 30 years old, then his mother is three times as old as Johnny. The ratio of mother’s age to Johnny’s age is 3 to 1.

Since the mother is 3 times Johnny’s age, and the father is 4 time’s Johnny’s age, the ratio of his mother’s age to his father’s age may be expressed as 3 to 4 using Johnny’s age as the common measure or common “unit”.

To summarize, if a and b represent counting numbers then a/b represents a rational number. Here both a and b are multiples of some indivisible common unit.

A RATIONAL NUMBER is a number that can be expressed exactly by a ratio of two counting numbers based on some indivisible common unit.

It seemed at that point in time that rational numbers represented all possible numbers that could ever exist.  A unit could be broken into smaller and smaller units making it possible to represent any quantity as a ratio of its mutiples. Therefore, it came as a big surprise when numbers, such as √2, were discovered that could not be written down as a ratio based on some indivisible common unit. It meant that no small enough common unit could be found for such numbers. The idea of an ultimate indivisible unit came under intense doubt.

It was a discovery so illogical that it was rejected outright by Pythagoras. The following is the earliest proof available: (see Irrational number – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The first proof of the existence of irrational numbers is usually attributed to a Pythagorean (possibly Hippasus of Metapontum.) The Pythagorean method at that time would have claimed that there must be some sufficiently small, indivisible unit that could fit evenly into the hypotenuse just as well as into the arms of an isoscles right angle triangle.  However, Hippasus, in the 5th century BC, was able to deduce that there was in fact no common unit of measure, and that the assertion of such an existence was in fact a contradiction. He demonstrated clearly that there may exist numbers, such as √2, that cannot be expressed as ratios of two counting numbers. Hence, they are not based on any unit that can be counted. It is said that Pythagoras was so enraged that he ordered Hippasus to be drowned.

These are irrational numbers. They defy the sanctity of the idea of a permanent indivisible unit. If you attempt to express an irrational number as a decimal you end up with a number that continues forever with no regular or consistent pattern. There can be two rational numbers that are infinitesimally close to each other, and yet there can be infinity of  irrational numbers betweem them. There is no limit to how small the difference between two numbers can be.

There was no going around this new consciousness that could not be disproven even when Hippasus was drowned. Today, the most famous irrational number is π (pi), which represents the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

.

The Null Viewpoint

It seems that “spiritual” and “physical” are not independent of each other. The idea that physical universe is created by God seems to be an assumption that occurs in most religions. On the other hand the idea that spiritual consciousness has evolved out of chemical interactions seems to be asserted by many who reject religion.

A third idea may be posited that both physical and spiritual universes are subsets of a larger universe. This super set of all possible universes may be referred to as the Universe of Consideration. Please refer to the essay The Nature of Consideration.

Both “spiritual” and “physical” are different aspects of a Universe of Consideration.

The Universe of Consideration may be looked upon as a cycle. This universe includes all that is spiritual and physical and anything else that may be considered. What lies outside this universe cannot be known or viewed from within the universe. Please refer to the essay Beginning.

A null viewpoint is posited as THAT which is beyond this universe of consideration. This idea is similar to what is referred to as Brahma in Hinduism, or Nirvana in Buddhism. It is beyond any beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter.  Please refer to the essay The Nature of Existence.

The term “null viewpoint”  is just a projection of the consideration of viewpoint that exists within this universe. Probably, the null viewpoint has nothing to do with a viewpoint. I am positing the term “null viewpoint” as a placeholder just like the placeholder “zero” in mathematics. We could use a different term, such as “osh kosh,” instead of the term “null viewpoint,” and it would make no philosophical difference.

No definition may be stated for null viewpoint because no logic is applicable outside of the universe. Logic exists only within the universe of considerations, as it is based upon the associations among considerations. A definition cannot avoid the use of beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter. Thus, any attempt to impose the logic of the universe to comprehend THAT which is beyond the universe would fail. That is the inherent weakness of any attempted definition.

The nature of null viewpoint cannot be determined from any ideas about how this universe came to be. The creation of this universe cannot be determined  from a viewpoint based on this universe. From such a viewpoint, this universe would always appear to be there.

We may only say that the null viewpoint is “absence of consideration.” Beyond that any idea about the nature of null viewpoint would only be… well… er!… a consideration.

For practical purposes a NULL VIEWPOINT may be considered to be a “point of view” that has no fixidity, stuckness, or permanence to it. It is a viewpoint that is continually coming into being and dissolving.

A NULL VIEWPOINT may be looked upon as a totally fresh viewpoint each time with no prior considerations, and hence no prior beingness.

.

Numbers & Consciousness

Numbers, in a crude way, seem to represent consciousness. In ancient times, the shepherd counted his sheep and, thus, accounted for them. That represented his consciousness of the number of sheep, whether all were there or if any were missing.

And so we have counting numbers that start with 1. The next number is obtained by adding 1 to a number. A person counts by calling out 1 for the first item, 2 for the second item, 3 for the third item, and so on. These numbers can be very large. For example, there are so many stars in the sky that it is difficult to count all of them.

Besides, a number may be dreamed up that is considered the largest. But, anyone may add 1 to that number to get a still larger number. Thus, there is no limit as to how large a counting number can be.

These counting numbers are also called natural numbers because they follow from the natural process of counting.

NATURAL NUMBERS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, …

SMALLEST NUMBER = 1

NEXT NUMBER = Number + 1

LARGEST NUMBER = Undetermined

The natural numbers provide us with a sequence that may be plotted as follows.

Here each number represents a whole unit, and it is set apart equally from the previous number. These numbers go on for ever.

As commerce developed, need arose for numbers that could represent parts of a unit, such as half of a unit, or quarter of a unit.  Half of a unit was written as 1/2 (one of two equal parts of a unit). Quarter of a unit was written as 1/4 (one of four equal parts of a unit). Three quaters was written as 3/4 (three of four equal parts of a unit).

Thus, fractions came to be written as ratio of two natural numbers. It was found that a natural number could be written as a ratio of itself and one. This new expanded set of numbers came to be known as rational numbers.

The fractions could be plotted on the number line before 1. A number and a fraction could be plotted between two natural numbers. For example, “one and a half” could be plotted between 1 and 2. In fact, it appeared that a rational number could be found for each and every point on the number line.

The consciousness of numbers had thus deepened and expanded greatly. It seemed at that point in time that rational numbers represented all possible numbers that could ever exist.  A unit could be broken into smaller and smaller units making it possible to account for smaller and smaller quantities. This system seemed to provide an adequate abstraction for the unfathomable and intricate quantitative universe.

The rational numbers came to be regarded mystical by those at the forefront of research, such as the Pythagorean Brotherhood.

What happened next is quite mystical. Please see  Going Beyond Counting.

.

Philosophical Beginning

To have a universe it must be considered first. And it must be considered from Unknowable that is beyond consideration.

NOTE: No definition for Unknowable is provided here other than that it is a view without any prior consideration.

A universe would consist of beingness and the awareness of that beingness. Unknowable (Nirvana) would be beyond any consideration of beingness and awareness.

Note: Here the use of the word “awareness” implies “awareness of beingness.” Some philosophies use the word awareness in the sense of awareness of awareness. That meaning is not implied here.

The universe would start with the assumption of BEINGNESS. The moment universe comes into BEING it becomes AWARE of itself. At that moment beingness transforms into IDENTITY, and awareness transforms into VIEWPOINT.

Note: The use of the word “viewpoint” implies a point of view, or considerations about something, such as, “a viewpoint of women.” Using “viewpoint” strictly in the sense of a location one is viewing from is a narrower interpretaton.

From the viewpoint:

  1. This identity has dimensions that define it. That is its SPACE.

  2. This identity persists. That persistence is its TIME.

  3. This identity appears to be active. That activity is ENERGY.

  4. This identity impinges through senses. That impingement is MATTER.

The universe, which comes into existence, is a system of IDENTITY, VIEWPOINT, SPACE, TIME, ENERGY and MATTER.

These components may be regarded as concrete or “physical.”

The corresponding abstractions in terms of BEINGNESS, AWARENESS, DEFINITION, PERSISTENCE, ACTIVITY and IMPINGEMENT may be regarded as “spiritual.”

“Physical” and “spiritual” are two aspects of the same system.

.

Addition Nov 14, 2022:

(1) For a viewpoint, which is part of a cycle, what is beyond the cycle is UNKNOWABLE.

(2) The universe is the superset of all cycles. According to the Vedas, the universe is also cyclic.

(3) We are part of the cycle of the universe. Our viewpoint lies within the universe.

(4) We can never know what is beyond the universe. This is UNKNOWABLE.

(5) We may only speculate about the UNKNOWABLE. That speculation becomes knowable, but the UNKNOWABLE remains unknowable.

(6) What we refer to as GOD is UNKNOWABLE. All that we attribute to GOD are our speculations only. We know these speculations only and not GOD.

.

Glossary

Consideration
To consider is to examine what is there and give it a shape through visualization. A consideration is the shape given as a structure of associations. The moment something is triggered by the unknowable, it is defined in the mind by considerations.

Sweden

May 2010: A discovery from under the sea

May 2010: A marketplace

.