Just some food for thought:
It is sometimes said that "All is one" - I think it was Parmenides who notably stated this. When you tell people "All is one" they wonder how can that be, especially when you look around and you see many. I, on the other hand wonder how can it be many when it can only be one.
This fundamental problem is everywhere. For example in computer science the basic building block is binary, and more specifically 0, and 1. In the computer world, strictly speaking, there is no such a thing as 2. No computer has ever "seen" 2. Yet computers, obviously can sum up 1 + 1 and return 2 as an answer. But 2 is not 2. It's 0010 if we use 4 bits, or 00000010 if 8 bits are used. In other words, it's all 1 (and 0 if you include 0 which is nothing more than a placeholder).
Well by this logic, in a strict sense, all integers are 1, all strings are 1, all algorithms are 1, all functions are 1, and so forth. In the computer universe, all is 1. So the interesting question is: How do we get many? Specifically, "How do we get 2"? It seems that 2 is a construct/perspective, rather than anything "real". People often say that 2 = 1 + 1, and somehow ignore that they just defined 2 in terms of 1, and pretend it's something other than 1. Of course when asked "Well, okay, what's one then?", issues arise. Anyone for 0 + 0 = 1? A lot of people believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but when you add 1 drop of water to another drop of water you get 1 drop of water - yes it's bigger, but bigger doesn't equal 2, for if it did, then a half drop of water + half a drop of water = 2 using the logic that bigger = 2. But enough about that.
Well, if "all is 1" in the computer universe, can the same be true for our "real" universe? If it is true, then what takes the place of 1 in the computer universe in our "real" universe. In other words, what is the building block? What is the building block in itself? And more importantly what can one say about oneself in this case? In other words, if all is one, then what am I?
It used to be believed the building block was the atom. Then we learned that the atom was over 99.9% "empty space" and composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. So we went from one to many. Quantum physics proposed the string theory (or the theory of everything), in an attempt to get back to "one". Of course, we discovered the quantum particles - and so we went back to "many".
So like a mental patient, we have been going back and forth between "It's one", no "It's many", no "It's one"....for millenniums. Evidence seems to insist it is "many" yet reason insists it is "one".
You can't have "many" without having "one". On the other hand, the evidence can be interpreted as evidence for "many ones".
So with that in mind, watch this:
It is sometimes said that "All is one" - I think it was Parmenides who notably stated this. When you tell people "All is one" they wonder how can that be, especially when you look around and you see many. I, on the other hand wonder how can it be many when it can only be one.
This fundamental problem is everywhere. For example in computer science the basic building block is binary, and more specifically 0, and 1. In the computer world, strictly speaking, there is no such a thing as 2. No computer has ever "seen" 2. Yet computers, obviously can sum up 1 + 1 and return 2 as an answer. But 2 is not 2. It's 0010 if we use 4 bits, or 00000010 if 8 bits are used. In other words, it's all 1 (and 0 if you include 0 which is nothing more than a placeholder).
Well by this logic, in a strict sense, all integers are 1, all strings are 1, all algorithms are 1, all functions are 1, and so forth. In the computer universe, all is 1. So the interesting question is: How do we get many? Specifically, "How do we get 2"? It seems that 2 is a construct/perspective, rather than anything "real". People often say that 2 = 1 + 1, and somehow ignore that they just defined 2 in terms of 1, and pretend it's something other than 1. Of course when asked "Well, okay, what's one then?", issues arise. Anyone for 0 + 0 = 1? A lot of people believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but when you add 1 drop of water to another drop of water you get 1 drop of water - yes it's bigger, but bigger doesn't equal 2, for if it did, then a half drop of water + half a drop of water = 2 using the logic that bigger = 2. But enough about that.
Well, if "all is 1" in the computer universe, can the same be true for our "real" universe? If it is true, then what takes the place of 1 in the computer universe in our "real" universe. In other words, what is the building block? What is the building block in itself? And more importantly what can one say about oneself in this case? In other words, if all is one, then what am I?
It used to be believed the building block was the atom. Then we learned that the atom was over 99.9% "empty space" and composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. So we went from one to many. Quantum physics proposed the string theory (or the theory of everything), in an attempt to get back to "one". Of course, we discovered the quantum particles - and so we went back to "many".
So like a mental patient, we have been going back and forth between "It's one", no "It's many", no "It's one"....for millenniums. Evidence seems to insist it is "many" yet reason insists it is "one".
You can't have "many" without having "one". On the other hand, the evidence can be interpreted as evidence for "many ones".
So with that in mind, watch this:
Last edited:
