What's is a Number? How do We Identify Parts of a Whole?
The Observer is the fundamental element of both scientific method and the fabric of reality, both the crux of existence itself and the only way to rationally identify that existence exists.
An old question asks, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” But, maybe a better form of this question would be ‘does structure require an observer?’ Within this same hypothetical spirit let's try asking ourselves...
If the universe existed without an observer, how many parts would it be divided into?
Let’s think about this in an abstract universe with an observer realizing or creating elemental divisions.
What if our experimental observer were some distance away, so far away, or maybe just so large, that they could see the whole universe at once... then how many parts would the universe be made up of from the observer's perspective? Would our observer with this grand view think of a forest made up of individual trees, or just see the universe as a single thing bypassing the component parts altogether?
Judging from the only perspective we have to work with, that of our own consciousness as it exists here in our physical world, it is likely that an observer would first see the whole thing as a single unit. Only upon closer examination would our observer start identifying individual parts in a willful effort to better understand the whole thing. Drawing further from our own grasp of reality, it is likely that as the whole were examined in greater and greater detail, more and more individual parts would be identified. This process would be limited only by the observer's available perspective, by how much detail that view allowed.
At what point our observer might stop dividing into parts is really up to them, and is mostly determined by conscious decisions based on how small of a part of the 'whole thing' they can perceive. Both the whole thing and the divided parts are valid ideas, with honest observations confirming that both do in fact exist.
A number, any number other than one, is really just a consciously perceived or imagined division of a whole. Even the number one is a concept that only exists as thought. In a very real sense one is not only the most important but also the biggest number imaginable. Every other conceivable number represents a conscious division of a larger single thing.
If we turn our observer's perspective around, we can imagine an observer that is small and/or directly in the middle of the Universe, and is so involved in the perceived minutia of their surroundings they can’t see the bigger whole thing that they themselves are a part of… an observer that cannot perceive the forest because of all the trees.
Our observer in this predicament of limited perspective will likely use the same conscious methods to understand the universe, but will begin with examining much smaller divisions of the same whole thing they are perceiving. In fact, they will likely be completely ignorant of the greater whole, at least at first. Again, depending on situational perspective and their will to perceive.
Higher resolution means finer grained, smaller, not bigger. We cannot understand the big picture without a grasp of the details, but focusing on detail can lead to a loss of the big picture. Starting from a position mired in detail limits perspective, depending on the subjective judgement of the observer.
The key is embodied perspective. Knowable perception emerges from both the biological configuration of the lens we look through and the direction we choose to point that lens, within the constraints of a specific situation.
An aggregate of biological perspectives, indexed and conveyed through language and symbolism (the Logos) becomes our continuum of knowablity. The one and only graspable reality we are participating in and attempting to refine right now.
The Observer is the fundamental element of both scientific method and the fabric of reality, both the crux of existence itself and the only way to rationally identify that existence exists.
The Observer is the King of all knowable Kings, and sees every perspective to an extent that eliminates the possibility of anyone fully understanding The Observer, along with anyone’s right to demand to fully understand The Observer. This condition and consideration applies to The Observer and The Observer alone, it does not apply to any other individual living or identifiable entities.
In case anyone hasn't figured this out yet… ‘The Observer’ in this context, presuppositional to I am, is an elemental iteration of the name of G-d.
...but we were talking about numbers
The only naturally observable numbers are those associated with biological bodies or celestial objects, and even those are matters of scale and perspective, they can only exist as perceived by conscious observation.
From our position in the cosmos we exist on one of nine planets orbiting one star, but a distant galaxy made up of countless star systems presents as a single fuzzy object from this same perspective.
We count sheep by individual head but measure yeast cells by weight or volume.
Substances like water or air require predetermined units of measure before any sort of measurement can be realized.
From a superior or global perspective all of the water in/on our world is one thing. Ultimately, all of biology is one thing. Our entire world is one thing.
We are always gauging an anthropocentric division of a larger and undivided whole.
What math calls “real numbers” are precisely not that. Every number on an infinite line of “reals” is a pure abstraction that only exists because we’ve invented it. Numeric paradox is a lot like asking if G-d can make an object so big even “He’ cannot move it.
Abstractions can be fancifully pitted against themselves ad-infinitum without logical resolution.
Degrees of radius in a circle are an abstract index we ascribe to an elemental or platonic idea of a circle. We can apply this index upon physicality with varying measure of utility, even though nothing that actually exists is a perfect circle. The measures and calculations serve our needs quite well with imperfect application.
An arc is not made up of degrees or radii, it’s not even a physical thing, rather it’s a geometric form or reference shape within our Logos we apply to things in an effort to understand and manipulate reality.
Any and every identifiable point in the flight of Zeno’s arrow is an abstraction that does not exist until after the fact. We cannot own or identify Now, and when we do in point of fact ID Now it instantly becomes the past, a new Now is continuously emergent much as addressed by the uncertainty principle. The half way point, or any other point of the arrow’s flight really only exists in our mind. If we were to stop the arrow mid-flight the point where it stopped becomes the end of the flight, while the half way mark would become an abstract point in the past.
Peano’s first postulate is a rather useful fiction. Useful for arithmetic, and useful to prove the validity of our 3 axis model of Human consciousness. Zero as a characterization of infinite potential, proof of abstraction at the crux of Human existence serving as the placeholder for Divinity.
Within a purely material logic, zero house wrens and zero taco stands are exactly the same thing sharing identical properties. Only within Human ideation do these labels take on distinct characteristics.
But of course, with regards to actual people and other biological beings that share our immediate environment and/or exist at a similar scale to us, natural law, something that even animals who are not privy to our Logos can grasp, engenders individuality and results in arithmetic as true as the ground we walk on.
It is obvious that you are you and I am I and that each of us must be considered individuals. This simple truth of biology forms an element of objective morality and our inalienable Human rights irrespective of any relative values.
Some of this may seem too simple to mention, but we can lose track of the basic truth of things if we’re not careful to keep them in mind.
Math is nearly perfect mythology, one that is particularly useful because the mythological characters (numbers) have solid relationships with each other and therefore represent indelibly clear values to the thinking observer. Numbers exist in a direct ordered relationship in that 2 is double 1 but only 2/3rds of 3, and so on. These are pure abstractions made objective by universal institution from multiple shared perspectives, just like every other objective fact that we can discuss.
Again, this is right where our lines cross, as numbers are a part of the Logos in particularly close alignment with the objective reality of our scale as illustrated by the vertical aspect.
In the 52 card pick up fable about entropy, it doesn’t necessarily take more energy to re-stack the cards than it did to toss them all up in the air at once. The total mass of each card and the combined mass of all the cards never changes. Re-combining the cards can take 52 individual efforts or cards can be scooped up in groups, but the important thing to understand is that any work in excess of the initial throw will always be the result of a conscious decision to order them based on a value judgement.
A conscious actor can decide it’s desirable to re-stack the cards in the order they choose, maybe all facing the same, by suit, numerically, or maybe just stacked in no order at all.
What does require more effort than the initial throw is arranging the cards based in sets or any order based on their respective identities. If the cards are not ordered but simply stacked without regard to set or sequence it is less apparent that more energy is required to do so than was expended with the initial toss.
Some agent must consciously grasp the individual card’s identities, then decide to arrange them. Or, the agent can perceive an existing arrangement. Either way a conscious agent and perceived identity are both required, there is no other way.
Order requires identity requires judgment requires observation. All of this requires consciousness and proving consciousness even to Self requires some semblance of order and identity.
Order is a property of conscious observation predicated on identity, another property of conscious observation. Order and identity are the same thing. Without an observer identity and order cannot exist.
Identifying entropy or order/disorder, or a field or a wave or a string or holographic emergence or really anything at all requires the judgment of a conscious observer.
The belief that mathematics is woven into the universe is understandable, as it’s something like an elemental aspect of the Logos, it is however erroneous to singularly elevate math to a supreme position, as all of the Logos is fundamental to our capability to understand the universe. And to be sure the Logos is Humanities's bridge towards the Creator and divine aspects of ourselves, but it is not the Creator and must be considered ignorant of the First Mover.
The map (Logos) is not the territory (Existence)
Consciousness, Existence, Reality, The Universe, are all the same thing, only describable through the Logos
Potential and awareness are the same thing, like space and time, like realization that exists forward and backward simultaneously.
We can use the Logos to try and talk about the Observer, but the Logos is not the Observer. The Logos, is a cloud of mostly logical abstraction regarding what is, has been, or might be, and is but a subject or tool of The Observer.
We don’t know where these universal entities or forces come from, and we don’t own them. By accepting their existence and associating them with elemental Human values and principles to live by, we can be better parts of them and flourish within our relationship with Creation.
The Observer transcends individuality as ubiquitous Being existent within every individual, as the eternal version of Self.
Consciousness is a name of G-d, The Observer is a name of G-d. Every conscious observer, animals included, is an iteration of Consciousness and a part of G-d.
A Human Observer is an agent within the Logos with the potential to realize they are a child of G-d.