Symmetrical Principles of Mathematics By: Monk Wellington Symmetry is considered to the balance of proportions.

We see this clearly in the aesthetic of geometric shapes such as a circle or a square, because these shapes when cut in half will produce a mirror image to the other half. But we can apply the ideal of symmetry to things beyond the equally balanced sides of shapes. We already do this in physics, but it can also be applied to the field of philosophy as well. In physics, symmetries are things that affect systems (time measurements direction etc.) that behave identically if you change only that specific thing. An example of this is if you measure a meter in one place then move, and measure it again, it will be the same, making it space symmetric. If you throw a ball and it goes a certain distance in a certain amount of time, that ball going reverse in time (for the same amount of time) will go the same distance; i.e. if it goes from A to B in 20 seconds, then it will go to B to A in -20s following the same path, making it time symmetric. When determining a fundamental property of the universe to be a law, it is also considered to be a symmetrical principle. Its referred to as a portion of the universe that is unchanged or unaffected by external influences & affects material objects on a scale from the very small to the very large. Things like gravity & electromagnetism are fundamental forces of the universe & relay these affects as such from everything pertaining to the smallest particle in the atomic structure to the largest celestial body known to man. Thus these forces are considered to be symmetrical. Thus no physics law is inherently symmetric, but establishes presuppositions of symmetries that allow it to be true. Within physics and Math, these constantly get updated, and are true until you reach a certain point where they aren't, this point is where most math and physics research takes place. Symmetry can be equally applied in the realm of philosophy where as when we want to understand the true nature of a concept, we break it down to the simplest form it can applicably be, by defining the concept that explains the

application of why a habit or an action of situations has come to manifest itself as such derived from its use in social conduct. When the ideal is broken down to such a degree as to produce a level of understanding that can be applied to every situation from the most accessible to the most abstract, the philosophy of it can not only be considered a principle, but can be viewed as being symmetrical as well. Knowing this we can understand deeper that symmetry in philosophy is only applicable when we find there are no exceptions to the concept(s) in question. Once an exception is found, its not a symmetric principle, thus needs to be accepted as such or re-evaluated until the ideal can be applied to every situation the imagination &/or level of personal experience will ever encounter. If we were to look at the ideal of what culture is, we define culture to be the integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs & behaviors that depend upon the capacity for learning & transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. In other words, culture is the system in which we transfer our beliefs & understanding to others, especially of a didactic platform. I do not see however that this can be applied to every situation that a human can possibly think to engage with, for this definition only applies to culture by human to human interactions. This concept does not seemingly apply interspecies interactions such as a relation to plants & animals or to the idea of the culture of one; one who lives without a sense of social cultural connection or identity. For how can there be a transference of information to establish an understanding unless an initiative is taken to learn about anothers culture? Any one person may or may not have a desire to learn about the others culture but if there is no desire to learn, any information offered regardless the level of cognoscente understanding, will become superfluous, unnecessary to know & will eventually be forgotten. Thus the process of transference of information will cease. It has & can be argued that humans are naturally social creatures, however until it is factually proven that there is a fundamental human nature that all humans derive a similar sense of purpose from, we must think of the ideal of culture not just in a social context but also in its most abstract form that any human could interact with in order to truly grasp the concept of what it is that we

are presenting & understanding for ourselves, so our actions thereafter can match appropriately from the source. For in truth, monks isolate themselves for years in mountain caves & hermits reject the norms of society at large to live alone. It is known within the Botany community that plants electromagnetic energy field can not just be affected by the environment but also by different types of music & intentions made from external influences onto the plant. If symmetrical theories were to be applied & agreed upon to every situation we can think of, we must take these types of situations into account as well. Thus culture for them, is not how culture may be maintained for others. So how can culture be symmetrically understood? It is perhaps more observant to see what is common in the extremities of situations, like that of an isolated hermit to the influence of the masses to the relation of man to its environment, than to define it based purely on criterion & conforming all actions thereafter. Based on observations, Im proposing to think of culture in its most fundamental form in that perhaps it may be nothing more than the result an agreed understanding. An understanding between people or between people to their environment establishes their own cultures respectively & is the most obvious construct of this ideal, but if this were to be applied symmetrically, it could also be an agreed understanding of the self, how well & what one person agrees upon with them self. What this understanding does naturally is establish context for the information observed shared regardless the direction of informational flow. We see the emergence of cultural agreements & understanding more clearly in arts culture; music, dance, poetry, painting, etc. whereas some people understand the object of whats being expressed & others do not, accepting with sentiments of analysis or rejecting with such statements as I dont get it. We also see cultural staples in athletic sports, financial institutions & religious creed. All of these different types of cultures can be better understood simply by spending enough time in each of them as to acquire a more visceral perception of the values that are shared. An understanding of the self in one sense can be understood by a comparison to others, but the ideals set in a society will have no value within the person if an extended amount of time is not spent alone in order to obtain a rounded

contrasting perspective. Not all interactions need be spent with others or alone, but when the extremes are acknowledged & explored, understanding is better established, & personal culture can emerge, often we call this representation the character of a person. Thus culture can be considered to be the result of an understanding between one or more parties. Clearly communication plays a large part of how culture is relayed whether speaking to oneself or speaking to others. A language not only represents the culture but also establishes it by its arcane performance. Certain religions, ethnic communities, & others of the like have words in their language that cant be translated into other languages & can be only understood by being apart or immersed in that culture. Observationally culture can be carried through the language because language is not always limited to verbal form; it is in arts, mannerisms, idiosyncrasies, & any other form of expression that is a means to translate & communicate abstract or personal thought. Language is a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures or marks, that have understood meaning; in other words, an understood system to convey ideas between different parties. Concordantly, once that understanding is established, culture emerges. Essentially, the process of finding symmetry is garnered by acknowledging the polar extremities of any type of philosophic ideal or psychological construct, examining the natural workings of its function to be able to compare & contrast the values of each so when similarities between all situations arise, we can determine its origin. The origin of thought & habit are the symmetries that all actions stem from. Understanding these symmetric principles only help to establish things such as a culture of one when faced with such existential questions as, who am I? what is the meaning of (life/love/justice/etc.)? Symmetrical principles could be viewed as finding the axiom of an ideal but differs from an axiom, as axioms are self-evident truths that require no proof, & symmetry requires a process of reasoning based on how the application presents itself in all situations regardless of its level of abstraction. As aforementioned, we see this principle being applied more clearly when observing the corporeal world &

the shapes that we can perceive in it. A clearer example of this can be seen when we think of the fundamentals of geometry. When they first teach you the principles of geometry, they teach you that a point has no dimension because it has no width, length or depth, & is to be understood as a theoretical position in space. Ultimately the point doesnt actually exist. When you put a series of points together, you make a line, which we consider to have 1 dimension. However, the line still doesnt exist because even though it may have a length, it has no width or depth. If you were to put a series of lines together that intersect in any way, it creates what we call a plane. We consider this plane to be 2 dimensional, yet it still doesnt exist because it doesnt include volume. Finally when we stack a series of planes together, weve reached the 3rd dimension. This dimension exists because this is the dimension that we live in, a dimension of length, width & depth. It has become an obvious axiom to consider this to be true because none of the other observable dimensions support life, as we know it. For thousands of years, ever since the days of Euclid & Pythagoras to Kurt Gdel & Buckminster Fuller, people have pondered the philosophical cavity of how is it that the basis of our reality is built upon three levels of dimensions that dont independently exist in & of themselves (0D, 1D, & 2D) yet create something that does exist (3D). Perhaps in order to truly resolve the dilemma, we take a different approach to understanding the situation to begin with. When we observe the universe, we can see that at different scales of size, the universe is made up of a series of points, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Imagine a person flying above the earth to the point where the earth would appear to be a point in space. If that person were to keep traveling through space, they would see the solar system to become a point. Nebulas, galaxies, quasars & super clusters would also eventually become a point should one travel far enough away, relative to the perspective of the traveler. Reversely if we were to travel into the atomic structure of our own hand, we would see a series of points in each scale smaller that we can go; blood cells, DNA, atoms, protons, electrons, quarks, fermions, etc. Thus observationally, it would clearly seem to make more sense to potentially reverse the axiom & instead of saying that none of the dimensions exists until its in the 3rd

dimensions, & say that the only thing that exist is the point (0D/no dimension). In order for this philosophy to be symmetrical, the points would have to be infinitely divided on all scales in each direction of the very large to the very small because the points are set as larger or smaller divisions of themselves. Meaning that fundamentally, there can be no Higgs/Boson or God particle because it would essentially be saying God decided to stop the universe at a particular size, possibly saying to him/herself, thats the smallest or largest thing that shall ever be created. Although I am no God, I consider the ideal that the universe could have a size limitation to be ridiculous. So if the universe is infinite in both directions on the scale of size, how is it possible that we should have boundary conditions? If the human body contains an infinite amount of sizes of particles, how are they all contained in such a way as to make up reality, as we know it? We can understand this dilemma by first creating a boundary for ourselves. For our example, lets create a circle. We use a circle because a circle is the most efficient shape. This circle is a 2 dimensional representation for what could be a 3 dimensional object. We could imagine the circle as a sphere if wed like, but for our example well use this circle for its simplicity. We can divide our boundary shape with another boundary shape. The most efficient shape with the fewest straight lines is an equal lateral triangle. Of course 3 dimensionally it would be thought of as a tetrahedron.

We have to also include another observation that the universe provides for us in that the universe is polarized. Polarization meaning every condition is contrasted by an equal & exact opposite; good & bad, fire & water, sky & earth, left & right, man & woman, light & dark, stillness & motion, large & small, up & down. So our boundary condition that weve created for ourselves must be polarized as well in order to match universal conditions. With these boundaries in place, we can create a new boundary for ourselves, thus giving us the opportunity to divide our shape into smaller & smaller portions. Essentially, with this pattern, we can divide these boundaries infinitely. However, with this process, we would never actually exceed the first boundary that weve created for ourselves. Fundamentally, what Im explaining is that the universe could work on a fractal geometric basis since it is already apparent in all things observational. Plants grow in the golden ratio/phi pattern. Spirals are seen from shells in the sea to the rotation of galaxies. Animals create smaller fractions of themselves through procreation (2 to make 1). All of this stems from the basic understanding of reversing the old axiom of the dimensional dilemma & applying it in a symmetrical way.

We can even extend this philosophy into our observation of what we consider to be the 4th dimension, otherwise considered to be motion or time. Our observation of time is based on a continuum of points we call moments that are stacked next to each other along a linear basis; were born at one point in time, living along an unchangeable line until we reach the point when we die. However, if our new axiom of dimensions were to remain symmetrically true, then as the no dimensional point was the only thing that would exist, it would also mean that the present moment is the only thing that is actually happening. The past & the future are merely perceptions of our own experiences. Time itself, is actually an illusion the same way a hologram can deceive the eyes. To borrow a colloquialism from Buddhist doctrines, the now is the only thing that exists. We can see this even more prevalent in our observation of things like Black Holes, where the gravity of a Black Hole becomes more intense the closer you get towards its center. Thus once the event horizon is crossed, nothing can escape its gravitational pull, not excluding light or time. It is theorized that as an object moves closer to the center of a Black Hole, time itself is being warped to the point that it speeds up. Thus the speed of time is directly proportional to the amplitude of the gravitational flux. Time, as it is being affected by gravitational pull, would seem to be symmetrically plausible that it would not exist if there were no gravity. But in truth, Time is seemingly more abstract & complicated than can be put simply into a paper of postulates. Time, like most of all-observational reality, is based on an empirical residue of impressions. It is almost alarming how limited the human senses are at actually comprehending reality considering every sense within human experience is completely subjective. Without the use of tools for objective observation, it would seem to make more sense that reality should fall into an anarchy of perceptions; everything experienced is left to opinion & personal interpretation opposed to facts. Such as the fact that within the entire spectrum, the human eye can only see between .00007 cm (red) to .00004 cm (violet) wavelength of the myriad types of light that the sun emits. (Cosmic rays, gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, radar, etc.) Although no human could ever truly know if their sensation of color like their sensation of Middle C is the same as

anothers, it seems safe to assume that every human sees colors or hears tones, or experiences other senses more or less alike, generally speaking of course. Thus a curious order runs through our perceptions, as if there might be an under current of objective reality that filters through our senses. With this ideal in mind, it is observationally understood that the mysterious nature of reality for some reason runs under mathematical principles. It is the orthodox of mathematics that enables people to predict & discover natural, symmetrical laws of the universe simply by the solution of equations. (E.g. E=Mc^2) Becoming the basis of not just physical sciences, but a standard model for how economical & social sciences can be applied as well. To the beginner student of the academic & arduous practice of arithmetic, the core philosophies are commonly lost under mountains of equations used to practice the fundamentals principles. Like coal being pressurized for thousands of years to produce diamonds, the principles have somehow morphed into the axiom that humans are the sole inventors mathematics. But in truth, as aforementioned, mathematics runs deep through in the veins of reality & doesnt justify the ideal of humans creating the system that the universe itself expresses on. So perhaps if we were to reverse the axiom again, we would see a different perspective of the picture & instead of saying that humans invented mathematics, it should be said that humans discovered mathematics. For in truth, math was there before humans ever existed. It took observational man & an analytical mind to realize that objects can be grouped together, added to, subtracted from, divided & multiplied. Humans invented the characters that we use to categorize the ideas of groupings & their operations together, such as the character for the number one (1) or two (2) or the processing characters of addition (+) or subtraction (-) & so forth. But fundamentally, if you add 2 units of anything to another 2 units, you can create a whole other unit that we respectively call 4. Although it may be called something else in another country or on another planet, the principles are still the same. Thus mathematics is more of a symmetrical language that the universe expresses itself on, than just a system derived from human ingenuity to quantify the relations between observable objects or a theoretical framework on the

functions of numbers. It can be considered to be a language when you take into to account that understanding mathematics helps keep track of football scores, bank account statements, calculating the time of travel, calculating the distance of travel, the movement of planets, growth of a tree, cycles of seasons, airplane flights, the number of Facebook friends, the fundamental structure of music. Those who truly understand mathematics are able to manipulate the stock market, build rocket ships & calculate their flight path, how much force & fuel it would take to get there. Anything that can truly be measured is done under the principles of mathematics. Thus mathematics is the only language in the universe that is purely symmetrical because no matter who or what perspective you are looking at from, the expression will always be the same. No matter where you are from, 2 + 2 will always equal the same fundamental understanding of what our number 4 represents. Mathematics is the only objective language of reality that everything expresses on without personal or subjective interpretation. Mathematics is the key to understanding the objective universe. If something can be understood mathematically, it is understood universally. Thus by better understanding the expressions of a mathematical universe, we can understand the esoteric culture that the universe presents itself on to us in its most abstract form of expression. Not just by knowing how humans can attain mastery over nature, but for how humans can relate themselves to the larger perspective that has already been established for far longer than humans have been known to exist. Symmetrical principles are whats found to be the undertone of a concept so that no matter where you go, or whom you speak too, the context of the words that you use in your conversations, the fundamental principles of the ideal being applied, will always be the same regardless the situation. This ideal of philosophic symmetry is symmetrical in & of itself because this philosophy applies to all things potentially able to be conceptualized. An understanding of those concepts become deeper when the core that it stems from is recognized & embraced regardless of the words or tools to communicate the expression of the concept.
*All quoted definitions taken from Merriam-Webster 2011 dictionary *Dimensional dilemma based on the research of Nassim Haramein