Unfortunately
because Conventional Mathematics is based inherently on a reductionist fallacy
i.e. that number can be understood with respect merely to its quantitative
aspect, it is perhaps not surprising that this key issue is effectively
avoided.

If we
define numbers as independent in an absolute quantitative sense, then this begs
the question as to how numbers can be successfully related with each other
(which requires the qualitative notion of interdependence).

The very
fact that this is not readily appreciated as of the most fundamental importance only
goes to show how ingrained this reductionist interpretation of number has
become. In other words, we assume that this interdependent aspect of number
behaviour (whereby numbers assume a qualitative relationship with each other)
can be successfully understood in a merely quantitative manner!

The true
inherent meaning of dimension is of a qualitative nature and relates to
the manner in which the fundamental polarities of experience i.e.
external/internal and whole/part are related.

1-dimensional
interpretation in this context simply entails the attempt to understand such
relationships in a uni-polar manner (i.e. using just one pole as an exclusive
frame of reference).

So for
example all mathematical experience necessarily entails the dynamic interaction
of objective subjective (cognitive) aspects that are relatively external and
internal with respect to each other.

1-dimensional
thereby implies then that we fix interpretation with just one pole in an
absolute manner.

So this
leads to the standard view of numbers as absolute entities existing in an
objective manner. Though one may recognise that strictly such numbers cannot
have experiential meaning without the existence of mental constructs,
somehow a belief persists that an absolute correspondence applies to both the
external objects and the internal constructs.

In other
words Conventional Mathematics essentially operates on the illusion that
mathematical objects have an absolute existence (independent of our
relationship with them).

1-dimensional
interpretation equally leads to the standard view of number as existing in an
independent quantitative manner. Though once again it may be recognised that a
general dimensional context is required to enable an ordered relationship of
these numbers, somehow the belief remains that this can be done in a merely
quantitative manner.

In truth,
the general context providing this capacity for ordered number relationships is
of a qualitatively distinct nature. However a remarkable denial of this key
fact pervades conventional mathematical interpretation.

So once
again its 1-dimensional nature is demonstrated by the manner in which the
qualitative dimensional aspect is reduced in a merely quantitative manner.

Now of
course Conventional Mathematics can indeed give meaning to dimensions (≠ 1) in
a quantitative manner.

So for
example from this perspective 2

^{3}= 8 (i.e. 8^{1}). Thus, though the qualitative context has here changed through use of 3 (as dimensional number) the numerical result is given in a reduced quantitative manner (in terms of 1 as dimensional number).
It is
extraordinarily important therefore to grasp that Conventional Mathematics is
defined in qualitative terms by its merely 1-dimensional nature.

This
effectively means that variables are treated in an absolute - rather than
relative - manner (where relative implies dynamic interaction as between
the opposite polarities that condition all phenomenal experience).

When one
grasps this point, one can then clearly recognise not alone why the Riemann
Hypothesis can have no proof, but even more importantly why its true nature cannot
be successfully understood in conventional mathematical terms!

As we know
the only dimensional value (in quantitative terms) where the Riemann Zeta
Function remains undefined is for s = 1.

In the more
comprehensive understanding of this Function this also implies that only
dimensional value (in qualitative terms) for which the Riemann Zeta Function
remains undefined is also for s = 1.

This means that the Riemann Zeta Function (and associated Riemann Hypothesis) cannot be
properly understood in the conventional mathematical manner.

Thus the Riemann Hypothesis essentially relates to:

(i) the condition with respect to number where both external (as objective results) and internal (as mental interpretation) are successively reconciled as ultimately identical and

(ii) the condition where both the quantitative (cardinal) and qualitative (ordinal) nature of number are likewise reconciled (as ultimately identical).

(i) the condition with respect to number where both external (as objective results) and internal (as mental interpretation) are successively reconciled as ultimately identical and

(ii) the condition where both the quantitative (cardinal) and qualitative (ordinal) nature of number are likewise reconciled (as ultimately identical).

Therefore we
cannot attempt to understand this relationship - which entails the dynamic
interaction as between opposite polarities - in a reduced absolute sense (where
objective results are divorced from cognitive interpretation and the quantitative aspect
of number likewise divorced from its qualitative aspect). This is why the
Riemann Zeta function cannot be successfully understood in a conventional (i.e.
1-dimensional) manner.

I can say
this with considerable confidence having already been dimly aware of the
problem from about the age of 10.

Even then I was seriously questioning conventional procedures. This started the long journey to get to the bottom of the problem (as I saw it) in the hope of offering a more authentic mathematical approach.

And after more than 50 years on this journey I believe that I have managed to come up with at least the general framework for a more comprehensive appreciation of Mathematics.

Even then I was seriously questioning conventional procedures. This started the long journey to get to the bottom of the problem (as I saw it) in the hope of offering a more authentic mathematical approach.

And after more than 50 years on this journey I believe that I have managed to come up with at least the general framework for a more comprehensive appreciation of Mathematics.

I have
recounted before how I found as a child the conventional explanation of a square root
deeply unsatisfactory.

For me
there it seemed that an essential symmetry should be preserved as
between the notion of a square on the one hand and a square root on the other.

So for
example we start with 1 and square we get - apparently - one unambiguous
answer i.e. 1

^{2}. However when we then get the square root we now have two possible answers + 1 and – 1.
The conventional explanation seemed to me even at this young age deeply illogical.

We would
not accept in terms of the proof of a theorem for example that it could have equally
have in qualitative terms a negative as well as positive truth value. This would be like saying that
we could accept the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem for example as
either true or false. However in the parallel quantitative context (in the context of a square root) it was indeed maintained that a number could have either positive or negative values!

So I
started to suspect - though I would not have been able to articulate my
thoughts then in a coherent manner - that the qualitative nature of 2 (as a
dimensional number) was quite distinct from 1.

And as
Conventional Mathematics is defined qualitatively in terms of its merely
1-dimensional nature, this opened up the possibility of entirely distinctive
logical approaches to Conventional Mathematics.
In other words the very inconsistency that in could see in the standard
explanation of the two roots of 1 was due to the fact that 1-dimensional
(either/or) logic was not adequate to explain this - apparently simple -
problem.

Many years
later (after long immersion in Hegelian philosophy and the wisdom of the great spiritual traditions) I was able to return to
this problem with what I considered was a satisfactory answer.

Whereas
1-dimensional logic is characterised in an absolute (linear) either/or manner,
2-dimensional logic is characterised by a relative (circular) both/and
approach. This then leads to paradox in terms of the 1-dimensional approach.

The Greek
philosopher Heraclitus summed this 2-dimensional logic up well in his statement,

“The way up
is the way down; the way down is the way up”

What is
involved here has profound consequences for all mathematical interpretation.

If one fixes
direction in terms of just one pole either “up” or “down” then movement along a
road is unambiguous, whereby it can be consistently defined in terms
of the given frame of reference.

If one now
alters the frame of direction (in the opposite manner) then again unambiguous
directions can be given in terms of this new reference frame.

However
when we now simultaneously try to relate both reference frames as interdependent i.e.
as 2-dimensional, this leads to paradoxical answers (in terms of 1-dimensional
logic). So
what is “up” or “down” in this sense is purely dependent on
context.

I have come
to realise over the years that - quite remarkably - Conventional Mathematics, because of
its 1-dimensional nature, is totally lacking any genuine notion of
interdependence (and thus always reduces this
notion, in any relevant context, to independence).

Alternatively
we could say that Conventional Mathematics is totally lacking any genuine
qualitative or holistic notion (thereby reducing it in a merely
quantitative analytic fashion).

So getting
back to our example on directions, the directions “up” and “down” in
2-dimensional terms can be represented as + 1 and – 1 in relation to each other. However these are
now understood in a merely relative fashion with positive and negative
depending on context.

The deeper
implication is that where the dynamic interdependence of two polarities is
concerned 2-dimensional - rather than 1-dimensional - interpretation is
required.

This
intimately applies therefore to the interpretation of mathematical symbols
which are inevitably conditioned by such dynamic interaction in experiential
terms..So internal and external and quantitative (part) and qualitative (whole)
polarities continually interact in experience and are related to each other in a dynamic complementary manner.

Thus coming
back to the square of 1 and the corresponding square root
of 1, one can perhaps appreciate now that this properly requires 2-dimensional
- rather than 1-dimensional - interpretation.

Thus when
we square 1 i.e. 1

^{2}, we move - literally to 2 dimensions (which qualitatively are defined as both + 1 and – 1 in relation to each other (depending on context).
Now when we
get the square root we are attempting to express these two polarities in a
reduced absolute fashion. So what is both + 1 and – 1 (in 2-dimensional terms)
becomes either + 1 or – 1 (in a 1-dimensional format) .

Strictly, whereas the cardinal (quantitative) notion of 2 represents - literally
- a whole unit (without qualitative distinction), the corresponding qualitative
notion of 2 entails its two ordinal members as individual units i.e. 1

^{st}and 2^{nd}(without quantitative distinction).
Thus the
two roots of 1 are obtained with respect to 1

^{1 }and 1^{2 }respectively i.e. 1^{1/2}and 1, = – 1 and + 1.
Therefore, 1-dimensional
interpretation is characterised by the use of single independent frames of
reference (with respect to polar opposite interaction) in an isolated manner.

It thereby
entails linear (either/or) logic in rational terms.

2-dimensional
interpretation entails both 1

^{st}and 2^{nd}dimensions. So initially it necessarily entails the 1st dimension in making unambiguous distinctions based on single independent reference frames. However there is now a clear recognition that these can now be made from two opposite directions!
Then the 2

^{nd}dimension entails the simultaneous integration of both reference frames (as complementary opposites) where both are seen as interdependent. In a direct sense this implies holistic recognition of an intuitive kind (pertaining to the unconscious). However it is then indirectly translated in a circular logical (both/and) manner that appears paradoxical in terms of linear reason.
2-dimensional
interpretation represents the minimum necessary to understand the number system
in its inherent dynamic interactive nature, allowing for both analytic (quantitative)
and holistic (qualitative) appreciation of mathematical variables or even more simply
both the (relative) independence and interdependence of mathematical variables.

In an
important sense, as I have explained in previous blog entries, all other natural number dimensions can ultimately be expressed
in a 2-dimensional fashion.

From my
early 20’s I spent several decades developing - what I referred to as -
Holistic Mathematics in recognition of its completely neglected qualitative aspect.

Initially this quest was largely driven by the realisation that a qualitative mathematical interpretation
could potentially be given for all stages of human and physical transformation (including rare
contemplative states). With a highly developed contemplative state, the dynamic
interaction as between the key polarities (underlying all phenomenal
recognition) becomes increasingly more refined corresponding to ever higher number dimensional
configurations. In my own work I especially
concentrated on the nature of interpretation corresponding to 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional,
4-dimensional and 8-dimensional appreciation respectively!

However it
is only in the last decade that I have seriously sought to explore the
implications of all this for appreciation of key mathematical problems such as the
nature of the number system and the Riemann Hypothesis.

I am now of
the firm opinion that despite a veneer of great rigour with its ultra-specialised
understanding of so many topics, at a fundamental level, standard interpretation represents
a greatly confused mess of highly reduced notions. (These unfortunately have become so reduced
through the long unchallenged consensus regarding their use, that an almost total blindness regarding their shortcomings
now exists).

I used to
be of the opinion - while developing the importance of holistic mathematical
notions - that standard interpretation would remain largely valid with respect
to quantitative appreciation.

However I
have come to clearly realise that all mathematical notions - including of
course number - are properly of a dynamic relative nature. As quantitative and
qualitative aspects are ultimately interdependent, it is therefore not possible to
understand number properly in a merely reduced quantitative manner.

For example
the correct appreciation of 1 and 2 in a qualitative ordinal manner (as 1

^{st}and 2^{nd}respectively) requires 2-dimensional interpretation and therefore cannot be properly explained in conventional terms.
When one
realises how quantitative and qualitative aspects are inevitably intertwined with
respect to the appreciation of number, then the key issue arising relates to the
ultimate consistency of both aspects. This indeed is the central message of the Riemann Hypothesis, which therefore can have no
strict meaning in conventional (i.e. merely quantitative) terms.

Nothing
less than a total revolution is now required in our mathematical understanding. This of course likewise entails a total revolution in what is meant by science.

I hope readers
to this blog can get some sense of the importance of what is involved. Successful transformation with respect to our present civilisation urgently depends on the rapid
realisation of its many implications.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment