Relativity: The Unification of Mind and Matter

Ilexa Yardley 14 March 2010

We decided as humans, or, perhaps, we are forced as humans, to create a symbolic system (a set of symbolic systems) within which we can know (communicate with, move around, observe) one another. The number system is one way to symbolize reality (ideality). The word system (language) is another. Pictures and diagrams are a third. re these three symbolic systems unified! nd, more important, what is the base relationship between a human and its symbolic system(s) (is a symbolic and a human system unified)! The unification of mind and matter is possible (and probable) (and, also, actual) if we are ready to accept the full meaning of relativity. That is, if everything is relative, we have an obvious clue, and a meaningful reality, for mind, matter, and unification (and the unification of mind and matter). We have to start with the idea of time. That is, we are accustomed to working within a time system, even though this is symbolic at best. We cannot prove there is such a thing as time, since time is not only illusory (elusive), it is invisible, imaginary, and abstract. We accept time as something real. "ut, in actuality it is something ideal. We agree on a time system which comes from our relationship to the solar system and, perhaps, the universe (if there is such a thing). We notice a linear movement through time, that is, we believe in past and future because we observe a linear change from one day to the ne#t that is certain to some degree. That is, we see ourselves aging, and we take the aging process as proof time is certain and time is linear. This is how we arrive at the idea time is a one dimensional (one directional) reality. $r, we notice all things live and die, have a beginning and an end, and we take this to mean life is a linear process (progression). %f we move to the idea of space, we believe in a three dimensional reality& length, width, height. Perhaps the three dimensions of spatial reality are three different time realities. This we do not consider. We align length, width, and height, by unifying them into a mandatory three'dimensional space, which, again, is based on what we observe as humans. human has a length'width'height, and so a human tends to (see( as length'width'height, or, at least, tends to categorize things into this spatial system (reality). We make the assumption this length'width'height occur in the same time frame (a non'provable assumption, at best). "ut suppose we remove our idea (assumption) of dimension, or, better, suppose we turn our idea of dimension into the idea of movement. nd suppose we transpose our idea of movement into a line. That is, any movement is a line because movement, by definition, is the relationship of any point ) and *. %f movement is defined as a line instead of dimension, and, further if a line is defined as the diameter of a circle, then the relationship between diameter and circumference (pi) is the base relationship (number, constant, idea) for movement, and also for line and circle.

%f movement is defined as a line, both time and space can be unified via movement. nd movement can be unified via symbol (where base symbol is circle whence line was born and vice versa). Within circle'line, or, more accurately, circumference'diameter, we have a base relationship for movement which produces, also, a base relationship for space. This simple base relationship also produces a base relationship for relativity, and also for time. +rom here we can derive all of the other relationships (all of them, truly). %f time is a line, space is the corresponding circle. %f time is a circle, space is the corresponding line. This fi#ed relationship ties time and space together (and, thus, forms the basis for reality). lso, if time is open (linear, moving, infinite), space is closed (circular, fi#ed, finite), and'or, if time is closed (circular, fi#ed, finite), space is open (linear, moving, infinite). To understand reality, we must integrate time and space by separating (,oining) them. Thus, we define movement as either a unit of time, or a unit of space, where one is derived from the other (one is an e#pression, or reproduction, of the other). We can notice there is a unified group of relative movements that comprises any entity. The simplest movement would be a (one) line. The most comple# would be more than one, or not one, line. %n this way one is the connection that forms two. $r, line is the connection that forms circle (or vice versa). nd two lines (two diameters not necessarily connected) is a sphere and'or a line. gain, in this way, two lines is the most comple# movement (where two is a pro#y for many, and sphere is a pro#y for line, or line is a pro#y for sphere). %f these two, one and two, line and circle, are always found together, we can assume (we must observe) there is an undeniable, irrefutable, irremovable, constant relationship that is found in, or the base relationship for, and the basis of, all things (any any'thing, every every' thing). -o a .thing,/ better named an entity, is the relationship between one and two or line and circle which is a better e#planation than particle and force. Particle and force, obviously, are derived from circle and line and their base, basic, intractable relationship. We can deduce mass and energy are also derived from the same circle'line relationship (constant). Thus, circle'line (circumference'diameter, one'two, yin'yang) is the constant relationship that is the basis for relativity which is, then, the basis for reality. We can notice e 0 mc1 if we rewrite it c1 0 e2m is a pro#y or a substitution or a correspondent or an agent for pi 0 c2d. Which came first speed (of light) or pi! -peed is pi since pi is never zero or infinity. %f pi is never zero or infinity, pi is always zero and infinity, because always and never, like any two non'like entities, are, if they are different, also the same. -o the relationship between pi, zero and infinity is mandatory and basic. -peed and pi, like line and circle, connect a constant ) and *.

That is, there is no pi, no zero, and no infinity unless these three occur together (there is no ) nor * without a connection of some kind). When zero does not e3ual infinity we have a mandatory line, which forces zero to e3ual infinity at some point, because of the mandatory relationship between line and circle. We can never separate these. We can never completely distinguish them, either. %nvisible line and circle are the great (universal) connectors because they are continually (constantly) connected. nd, then, or therefore, invisible and visible are (must be) connected. We find different and same, as the basis for relativity, on a basic circle, where any two points, if they are on a line are different, and, if they are on a circle, the same. $r, same and different become ,umbled up, 3uickly (by design). +urther, two points on a circle can be facing the same direction or opposing directions (or different directions) and, in this way, with circle only, we can find the concept similar and different. %t is all relative. 4elativity means we can interchange one thing for another if we have identified the base relationship. 4elativity also means we can assume, because it is guaranteed, one thing will evolve into another over time. %t is ,ust a 3uestion of how much time, and what is space in relationship to time. nd, also, where is the space in relation to time (we cannot mandate any of these occur together because relativity is the basis). %n this way, if we define dimension as the relationship to line and circle, and if we start out with the idea line is circle, we can count in lines or circles to reach a more rigorous definition of dimension. That is, one line is one dimension, two lines is two dimensions and three lines is three dimensions etc. These are, most will recognize these as, the basic shapes (circle, line, triangle, s3uare, star, etc). $ne dimension is two circles (if one line) or one circle (if two lines) which is also sphere. -phere is many circles which must always reduce to one circle so sphere is never ,ust three dimensions. -phere can also be two dimensions, or, at least, it can appear as two dimensions, and it can also be many more than three dimensions because spheres within the sphere most certainly affect it. -o, if line and circle are the base relationship, we must change our measurement systems to reflect this and we must key all entities (and processes and systems) off this one relationship. When we do this, we will have arrived at a more accurate, succinct, and meaningful description of reality. lso, we will have to accept the triangle cannot occur without the circle and, thus, there are no purely linear (evolutionary) systems. 5owever, we must be careful here. %f there are no linear systems, there are only linear systems. Too many to count, but countable, ,ust the same (the number system is not always infinite).

We must remember, however, we have ,ust created two descriptions of reality (at least, at best) in order to find one. ("ecause, as shown, two is necessary for one.) 6ike a map of the world, we need many different kinds of maps to describe one reality accurately, and, because reality is moving, no set of maps ever describes it perfectly. We fill in the blanks because we are the reality we are articulating. That is, the idea of we, comes from the basic relationship of line and circle, and any .we/ is a pro#y for any other .we./ This is ,ust, again, another way of saying any one must be two and any two must be three and two and three are both pro#ies (substitutions) for many, more, multiple. 7nity is duality. $r unification comes from non'unification via observation. The observer must decide to unify (only 89: of the observers, if there are more than one, can decide to unify). 4elativity, to be fully understood, must be reduced to, or analyzed from, or e#tended to, the relationship between line and circle, straight and curved, direct and indirect, diameter and circumference, all pro#ies for pi, which is a pro#y for the idea of constant, which, because of pi, or because of circle, must always be in a circular relationship (pro#y for) everything that is not pi (everything that is visible, observable, moving, movement, not constant). ;ventually it is very easy to see& pi is the only observer. Pi is the basis for relativity. Pi is the basis for (relative) reality (dimension). Time and space, like mind and matter, share an abstract'concrete relationship that is grounded, based or evolved from (and into) the relationship between line and circle (diameter and circumference) which is a more accurate articulation of force and particle. This relationship is symbolic, if it is real. Therefore, the unification of mind and matter takes place via symbol(s). The basic symbol set& line and circle. 6ike line and circle, lines do not occur without curves (and vice versa because of the mandatory relationship of line and circle), numbers do not occur without words, words do not occur without pictures, pictures do not occur without sounds, and sound does not occur without light (because sound and light, like every other pair, are symbolic articulations of circle and line). <ind and matter are unified by the symbolic relationship of circle and line (abstract and concrete, as any pair, are unified via circle). 7nified via circle means you cannot have one thing without another, and any anything evolves (becomes, already is) into every everything (or any any other thing). ny ) is * eventually. ) and *, any ) and any *, every ) and every * may also be symbolized as )* which is ), *, and neither ) nor *, all because diameter and circumference are eternally ,oined (there is a mandatory circular relationship between any ) and *, which is mandatorily abstract, invisible, symbolic) and this is the unification idea we, mind, matter, symbol, seek and find (because of circle there is no seek without find).

-o, to summarize, because of line and circle, and also, always, pi, mind and matter and unification (symbols) occur together. This means we always have mind, we always have matter and we always have symbols. lways and never, like everything else, share a circular (relative) relationship. The symbol invented us so we could invent the symbol and this we know because we share a circular (symbolic, relative) relationship. %t is important to note, notice, observe& relativity is a symbol. Therefore, if everything is relative, everything is also absolute, but this is, as everything, most basically, a symbolic relationship. We cannot have absolute without relative, we cannot have real without symbolic, and we cannot have abstract without concrete. collo3uialism articulates it best& .it/s always something=/ This is a pleasant thought.