Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Perfect Symmetry

  1. Jan 19, 2004 #1
    Perfect Symmetry

    Heinz R. Pagels wrote about it. I have read it. But I don’t remember enough to say for sure that what I will discuss in the following is not just echoes of what he said. In any event, my understandings of perfect symmetry are the following.

    In a perfect universe:

    Einstein’s equation is E = m. Energy is mass and mass is energy.

    Two of Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are written as:

    curl E= -dB/dt
    curl B= dE/dt.

    The speed of light c is equal to 1 (c=1).

    Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion F=ma=0 (inertial force is zero). Since inertial force is equivalent to gravitational force, gravity is also zero.

    Space is time and time is space. Space=0, time=0. The universe is static. No big bang. And then the worse part, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 19, 2004 #2
  4. Jan 19, 2004 #3

    My first impression of Doron Shadmi's works on complementary logic is that of pure logic itself. Logic is a field that I don't know anything about.
    I don't know its rules and how to ago about formulating an argument for the test of validity for these rules.

    I know a little about mathematical logic. For example, in the binary operation of addition, that 1+1=2, always. There exist a number zero that added to 1 equals 1, same as nothing been added at all. Zero is called the identity of addition. There is a number -1 that added to 1 equals zero, -1 is called the inverse of 1. In the binary operation of multiplication, zero and infinity are not defined. The identity of multiplication is the number 1. The inverse is the ratio of 1 over the given number. For example, the number is 2, inverse is 1/2. the product of 2 and 1/2 is 1. The inverse of 1 is 1 itself. But we still can say that the inverse of zero is infinity. We can use infinite series and try to prove this statement by mathematical induction and say that the inverse of zero is 1/n as n approaches infinity and the limit exists.

    I learnt the word complementary in studying geometry in high school in the early 1960s, complementary angles. The existence of angles is implicit in the existence of a plane triangle in 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry. Once we go into non-Euclidean geometries, the meaning of angles start to lose its real meaning. Now we have to define solid angles, which are angles between planes not just between lines.

    In modern set theory, a subject I know very little. Complementary set is a set whose intersection to another set is the empty set and together they create a bigger universal set, the sum of the two given sets.

    Complementarity is also used in physics, and this is a subject that I do know more about. The duality of the nature of particle (discrete) and wave (continuous) is an outcome of the principle of complementarity.

    Antonio Lao
  5. Jan 20, 2004 #4
  6. Jan 20, 2004 #5
    CL use for Pattern Recognition?

    Before I go any further, I am going to start by making some comments about CL.

    CL can be applied (distance future) to artificial intelligence in coding a program for a color-blind robot.
    Boolean logic is the cornerstone of computer science and CL can never take away its huge advantage over any other logic system. Fuzzy logic, I think, came about when the science of artificial intelligence was invented. Fuzzy logic cannot replace human logic in terms for information gathering by sight, sound, and touch. There is too much coding in computer program causing system overload. Although digital computer processing time is very fast, it is still far behind the info gathering power of an analog computer such as the human eyes-brain system. Although digital computer has very large capacity of memory storage, it still cannot surpass the memory capability (not capacity) of a human brain. The storage of computer is static, while the storage of the brain is dynamic and it is also based on real-time processing. Further, the human eyes see in stereoscopic 3-dimensional pattern, while the computer can only sees in 2D pixels. The ability of the human eyes to see in color is a very complex process in the science of optics.

    CL presupposed the existence of two sets whose intersection is the empty set.
    CL further asserts that the above statement is always true no matter how finely one look at the complementary boundary down to the microscopic region. The complementary boundary, in the real world, is mostly nonlinear and is also separated into many irregular regions of triangles, squares, rectangle, polygons, circles, ellipses, ovals, curves, etc.

    Reality is not as simple as black and white. There is grayness as in fuzzy logic. Even worse, there is colorness as in the science of optics.

    CL related to my threads? What I am trying to do in all of my threads in this physics forum is to describe the concept of two time's directions and theorize on the origin of mass. If this requires the use of complementary logic, I am more than happy to welcome CL into my research.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  7. Jan 20, 2004 #6
    Today's Computer systems are based on Turing Machine:


    The DNA is an example of how nature using Complementary Logic.

    If we find efficient methods to explore and use a vary complex structural and dynamical real time phenomena, then very powerful models can become an actual realty.

    This is a very dangerous state if the gap between our moral level and our technological level is too big.

    Therefore I think that powerful language like Mathematics has to include the developer|development relations as natural part of it.

    Maybe CL point of view is in the right way to this goal, because it first of all based on the idea of associations between opposite things, that naturally destroying each other by association.

    If we learn how to develop methods that can help us to communicate with each other in non-distractive ways, I think maybe we will be able to survive the power to future’s technology.

    What do you think?
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  8. Jan 20, 2004 #7
    CL in DNA?


    I still cannot picture in my mind the connection of CL to the structure of DNA.

    CL is based on two opposites and their associations?

    The DNA codes is based on the combinations of four bases
    adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T).

    These are all chemical compounds derived from the elements:
    Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and their complex chemical bondings. The result is the double helix structure just like the link of two pieces of jigsaw puzzles. When these pieces are combined the outcome is a DNA molecule. The mathematical combinations and permutations of A,C,G,T is almost endless. Yet the Human Genome Project has decoded a lot of informations. Did they used CL to do the decoding?

  9. Jan 20, 2004 #8
    If you have only half of the DNA code then automaticaly you know the missing half ( A <--> G , C <--> T) for example:

    A CC TG
    | | | | |

    is the complement of

    | | | | |
    G TT CA
  10. Jan 20, 2004 #9
    As much as I know, they did not use CL because as much as I know I am maybe one of very few people that dealing with CL development.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  11. Jan 20, 2004 #10
    CL is Powerful


    CL is powerful! Maybe we can shake hands with God after all!
    Thanks for the enlightenments.

  12. Jan 20, 2004 #11
    I think the "key word" here is "we".

    We must find methods that can help us to communicate with each other in non-destructive ways, otherwise we shall not survive our future's technology.
  13. Jan 20, 2004 #12
    Method Found?


    Have you found one of these methods?
    I have been trying to find such a method for a long time. I will keep on looking for it. Let me know if you find it first. Thanks.

  14. Jan 21, 2004 #13
    I think one of the beautiful things in open systems is not to find THE SOLUTION to something, but to find solutions by active participation through non-destructive communication.

    By this attitude i think we always tuning ourselves in real time.

    Because Complementary Logic is an open system by nature (and by saying this I mean that any of its results is under the lows of probability that can be clearly shown here:
    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Identity.pdf ) then any moment is the time to choose if we survive our choices or not.

    Moral conclusions based on CL can be found here:


    Shortly speaking, any decision is based on our abilities to destroy or construct our system.

    The answer to this dilemma cannot fully found in the limits of the examined system simply because of the fact that we always can destroy what we can explore.

    CL solution to this dilemma is real time participation through communication between opposite things, by discovering their abilities to complement each other to something which its Quality is more valuable then any one of them alone.

    What do you think?
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2004
  15. Jan 21, 2004 #14
    What is an Open System?


    I think I saw you used "Open System" in other area while discussing CL. Still, I don't think I understand what it means. Please explain.

    Another one that I don't understand is "non-destructive" as applied to communication.

    What constitute a "non-destructive" communication? This seems to indicate a prior knowledge of "destructive" communication.

    To me, communication is the active exchange of ideas between two or more persons. There can be agreeements as well as disagreements but the ideas themselves can never be destroyed unless one erases them from one's mind.

    The next is choice. How this applied by CL? Going back to the exchange of ideas. One can choose that another person's idea is better and by choosing, which subsequent actions are taken. Later, the action, might turn out to be wrong but the idea was in no way destroyed.

    I still dont't think we can destroy an idea? We can act or not act. We can speak or not speak. We can stop thinking or resume thinking. But we can always think of something else. Life goes on.

    If we look back in history, we can see major ideas go through a long period of being accepted by the public and only if they are interested to begin with. There are many other things that one must do to stay alive and it is only in leisures or physical inactivity that one can go into contemplation and think of better ways to do certain things.

    The progress of technology was started by a good idea. But all the bad ideas in all the failed experimentations were never destroyed. They were just never repeatly experimented again. History repeat itselt only for those who did not remember and did not learn from previous mistakes.

    Excuse me for my ignorant, but allow me one final question: give me an example of "opposite things." Do you mean thesis-antithesis as in Hegelian dialectic?

    Synthesis is the higher level of truth that reconciled thesis-antithesis.

  16. Jan 21, 2004 #15
    CL fundemental opposite concepts are:

    Identical - Different
    Emptiness - Fullness
    Symetrical - Directional
    Fale - True

    It can be shown here: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

    About "non-destructive" communication:

    If there is no communication we become closed systems, and closed systems find their death by entropy.

    Please let me show you some interesting insight through Hebrew language (my language).

    Hebrew belongs to a family of languages that are built on 'roots'.

    It means that any word is built on some combination of letters, which is not a specific word.

    For example: in Hebrew the words ELEM(=MUTENESS) and ALIMOOT(=VIOLENCE) are built on the same root, which is Aleph.Lamed.Mem .

    Through this common root we get the insight that the one how can't express himself (=MUTE=ILEM) through communication, becomes VIOLENT(=ALIM).

    And VIOLENCE is a form of using energy to destroy complex systems indiscriminately, or in another words, to increase their entropy.

    Please be aware to the difference between COMPLEX to COMPLICATED.

    Complex systems are based on simple principles that give them the ability to become energy savers.

    And being an energy saver means: maximum results out of minimum energy, which implies minimum entropy.

    So through this point of view, the model of INFINITY is:

    Nor-begining-never-ending zero-entropy that aware to itself.
  17. Jan 21, 2004 #16
    One Question at a Time


    Thanks for the continued insights. I am beginning to see below the tip of the iceberg of CL. Allow me to keep ask you question but only one at a time. You have to forgive me that my learning ability is on the slower side.

    Empty/full - Is there no concept of half-full or half empty?

    Entropy - This concept is used to defined a direction of time in thermodynamics. It's the loss of useful energy. The flow from order to disorder. In information theory, it is the loss of information.
    In cosmology, the attainment of maximum homogeneity for the state of the universe. In sociology, the decline and degeneration of society.
    These all seems inevitable. Are you saying that CL can reverse these processes?

    Complex systems - In chaos theory, order can emerge out of disorder.
    And there are complex adaptive systems that can adapt and survive in the harshest environment. Most complex systems (chaotic) are nonlinear and hence very difficult to predict, for example weather forcasting. The strange attractors, bifurcations, the Butterfly Effect, and many other complex systems, which are chaotic in origins can have order emerging out of the chaos. Are you saying these are the results of nature using the methods of CL?

    I have more questions but later. Thanks for the ones you already replied.

  18. Jan 21, 2004 #17
    Nor-beginning-never-ending zero-entropy that aware to itself.

    Through my point of view this is the ideal communication state.

    I think it maybe smellier to what you call perfect symmetry, so let us call it perfect symmetry that aware to itself.

    This kind of awareness is any opposite's communication beyond destruction.

    Please look at what I call Cybernetic Kernel:


    When cybernetic efficiency rising, ET's redundancy and uncertainty are reduced, and the ability of energy saver complex systems to survive is rising.

    About half-empty half-full please see this:
  19. Jan 21, 2004 #18
    CL Uses Negative Integers?

    Do negative integers have any meaning in CL?

    Are the number system in CL ordinal or cardinal?

    I don't believe in the operations (addition, multiplication) of ordinal numbers.

    I don't think that temperature can be added or multiplied.
    Temperature might be an ordinal number.

    I don't think that density can be added or multiplied.
    Density might be an ordinal number.

    I am beginning to have doubt about time. I don't think time can be added or multiplied. Time might be ordinal but we been using it as cardinal.
  20. Jan 22, 2004 #19
  21. Jan 22, 2004 #20
    Is CL same as Fractal?


    Indirectly, you are saying that CL uses negative integers but with double meanings attached to it. And these meanings can be interpreted as the "destruct," "construct" mechanism whose results are both denoted by the ordinal number zero? Zero can be cardinal.

    I think, when zero is used as cardinal number, it is destructive.
    I think, when zero is used as ordinal number, it is communicative.

    I still think that ordinal numbers cannot be added or multiplied.

    My next question is can CL be used in the mathematics of fractals.

    Fractals is a combinations of micro-macro geometric self similarity.
    Its dynamic incorporates the powerful concept of random generator and the use of probability theory. Bacause of this probabilistic aspect, fractals are applied to statistical physics, natural sciences and stunning computer graphics. Can reality at the deepest level be a random variable? This variable can only have two members in its set.
    (1,0) for CL? In my research, the members are (1,-1). The -1 is used in order to specify the directional property of ordinal number whose absolute values is always 1 hence they cannot specifty quantity but only quality. And "direction" is a qualitative property of number, of ordinal number to be exact.

    At this stage of my accumulated knowledges (both in physics and math), I still don't think that we possess the kind of mathematics (idealization of model) to describe our understanding of the physical meaning of "direction."

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook