IF.... THEN.... Has to be — TheMadFool

If, then, doesn't have to be. Doesn't even have to be the if.

And, symmetry in the universe is not to be casually asserted or assumed - it's just not a simple topic.

If, then, doesn't have to be. Doesn't even have to be the if.

And, symmetry in the universe is not to be casually asserted or assumed - it's just not a simple topic. — tim wood

I checked the references and my statement that science has unearthed symmetry in the universe holds up. A simple example would be matter-antimatter.

A difference between some symmetry and all symmetric, yes?

From WIki, on symmetry:
"These symmetries are near-symmetries because each is broken in the present-day universe."

In any case for your argument to be anything more than an if-then, you have to demonstrate the if is true. You also have to demonstrate that the conclusion follows from the premises. It may be valid, but the truth of it a different matter.

If "matter-antimatter" was a symmetry, then the universe would not exist. :roll: Just because you can assign binary opposites in no way entails them mapping on to physical processes or relations. More pseudoscience & bad philosophy, Fool. :eyes:

:up:

It may be valid, but the truth of it a different matter. — tim wood

I can live with that.

If "matter-antimatter" was a symmetry, then the universe would not exist — 180 Proof

Broken symmetry! However, this could be just a phase in the cosmic tango - antimatter may show up and do its thing whatever that is. Yin-Yang specifically mentions that the balance between opposites is fluid, changing from one extreme to another and back.

However, this could be just a phase in the cosmic tango - antimatter may show up and do its thing whatever that is. Yin-Yang specifically mentions that the balance between opposites is fluid, changing from one extreme to another and back. — TheMadFool

C'mon, you know better than this.

C'mon, you know better than this. — tim wood

I wish that were true but, luckily/unluckily, it ain't.

By the way, I'm fairly certain, out of character for a skeptic, that if symmetry is a property of the universe, and scientists seem to be zeroing in on that position, whatever I said would be true, no?

At the moment your argument is supposing asymmetry to be symmetry, and calling it symmetry, while at the same time acknowledging it isn't. And, "symmetry is a property of the universe," what does this mean? I.e., does it mean the universe is symmetric? Apparently - whatever it means - it is not. Or does it mean that symmetry occurs in the universe? Which would turn your universal premise to a particular, and disembowel the argument. This is what I claim you know.

Matter-antimatter asymmetry =/= "Yin-Yang" complementarity. C'mon, dude... :sweat:

Hot-cold, Good-bad, Tall-short, Big-small, male-female, up-down, left-right, but more importantly, something you for certain will understand: is (p) and is not (~p).

Matter-antimatter asymmetry =/= "Yin-Yang" complementarity. C'mon, dude... :sweat: — 180 Proof

Asymmetry is a phase. Yin-Yang is dynamic (ebb & flow, rise & fall, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley, my God, I didn't know there are so many ways to write this idea down).

You understand that "phase" is nothing intrinsic to the universe - or any thing for that matter. If symmetry means balance of some kind, then the universe is either in balance or it is not in balance. To say that it is not now, but will be, is simply to say that it is not now.

The question as to whether it cycles between balance and imbalance a different question, a very different question.

IF the universe has symmetry THEN for every thing there must be an anti-thing (the opposite). — TheMadFool

What if the universe has symmetry but is not all symmetric. In this scenario not every thing would require to have an opposite even if some things do.

Symmetry is basically Dualism (Indian Philosophy), the idea/belief that the universe is made up of two but opposite parts. The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang
The idea is rather simple, examples will illustrate this: Hot-Cold, Tall-Short, Big-Small, Light-Dark, Male-Female, Particle-Antiparticle, etc.. Basically, thing vs anti-thing — TheMadFool

This is very similar to my own BothAnd worldview, in which all parts of the world have balancing counterparts. Hence logically & necessarily, Dualism is inherent in Reality. But the second half of my notion is that dualism was necessary to create distinctions, and to allow for change. If the physical world was monistic, there would be only one big thing, and no room for change. However, you could also argue that the a priori Singularity (or G*D) was monistic and holistic, but then in an unprovoked act of creation, split like nuclear fission into a Big Bang, first into two halves (e.g. matter-antimatter). Then, as a chain-reaction, it continued to divide in a manner similar to meiosis of living cells. :nerd: ☯ ☯ ☯ ☯ ☯

6. Since there's a being that's powerless, ignorant, and bad (me :sad:), there has to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (God proven). — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables, to hold-up as a logical argument. Besides, an all-encompassing Unity, could not exist within our imperfect and ever-changing reality. Nevertheless, I reached a similar holistic G*D conclusion via a different line of reasoning. It's based on the notion that evolution is executing a Program, which must have a Programmer. Yet, the relationship between Programmer and Program is not symmetrical, it's conceptual. The whole is not just another part, or a counterpart. :smile:

The question as to whether it cycles between balance and imbalance a different question, a very different question. — tim wood

Ebb & flow, ups & downs, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley. These are all descriptions of the universe, life, everything that take into account flux, the dynamic quality of the universe. The ancient sages geometrized the pattern as a circle/cycle but a circle doesn't quite do the job as it's static. The more apposite geometrical object would be the sine wave which is the best fit for all that was listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

If symmetry means balance of some kind, then the universe is either in balance or it is not in balance. To say that it is not now, but will be, is simply to say that it is not now. — tim wood

Insofar as my thesis, The Symmetry Method, is concerned, I'm only interested in the big picture and not in the details because I lack the esssential skills to undertake an enterprise that delves into minutiae. I know, I know, the devil is in the details. Suffice it to say that if everything has symmetry (thing vs anti-thing) then, it isn't too much of a stretch to employ symmetry as an axiom and from there to make the inference that an anti-thing (an opposite) exists because a thing does.

What if the universe has symmetry but is not all symmetric. In this scenario not every thing would require to have an opposite even if some things do. — Daniel

That's a contradiction. The instant an opposite is missing, that which suffers from this condition loses what can be called the contrast it needs to exist.

A coupla weeks ago a Mr. David Pearce, transhumsnist, was espousing his view that one day, it's hoped, suffering will be eradicated (Abolition of suffering he calls it) and everyone, it's predicted, will be, his own words, superhappy.

Transhumanism is a fairy tale that could become reality and it has a happy ending. However, what I couldn't fathom was (super)happiness sans suffering of some type to some degree. Posthumans wouldn't know the value of superhappiness if they don't know what suffering is. Yin-Yang. What is yin? Not yang! What is yang? Not yin!

A little thought experiment to drive home the point. Take a blue ball and keep it against one, a red background and two, a blue background. Would you be able to see the blue ball in the second case (blue background)? No! A thing and its opposite are existentially co-dependent i.e. one can't exist sans the other!

This is very similar to my own BothAnd worldview, in which all parts of the world have balancing counterparts. — Gnomon

:up:

dualism was necessary to create distinctions — Gnomon

:up: Check out my reply to Daniel.

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables — Gnomon

Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing!

What about things that are sort of in the middle ? I don't have much physics knowledge but isn't there a state of matter that is between the classical states of matter ? What is the opposite of it ? Itself, just like how the point parallel to another placed on an axis of symmetry is that same point ? Or something else ?

The more apposite geometrical object would be the sine wave — TheMadFool

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case.

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case. — tim wood

Please visit Yin and yang for more information!

Please visit Yin and yang for more information! — TheMadFool

Information about what, exactly. Don't answer reflexively but think about it first.

And I'll note that the site mentions duality. Why not triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so forth?

The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang — TheMadFool

It's really not, though.

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables — Gnomon
Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing! — TheMadFool

The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white.

Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :smile:

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case. — tim wood

That's why the Yin/Yang concept describes a dynamic balance. Even the symbol looks like it's whirling around. The complementary oppositions of our universe (male/female, hot/cold) are what makes the world go around -- figuratively and physically. ☯

I think what was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism:

Taoism's wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing) is a term with various translations[note 21] and interpretations designed to distinguish it from passivity. The concept of Yin and Yang, often mistakenly conceived of as a symbol of dualism, is actually meant to convey the notion that all apparent opposites are complementary parts of a non-dual whole.[229] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Taoism

(boldface mine)

Hot-cold, Good-bad, Tall-short, Big-small, male-female, up-down, left-right, but more importantly, something you for certain will understand: is (p) and is not (~p). — TheMadFool

But there are also at least such triplets:
hot - lukewarm - cold
good - neutral - bad
big - medium - small
male- hermaphrodite - female
up - middle- down
left - center - right
etc.
and quadruplets:
South - North - East - West

It's not that thinking in opposite pairs is a given, or somehow inherent. We formulate groups of competing concepts depending on our needs. For example, to orient ourselves geographically, we need at least 4 determinants.

It may be valid, but the truth of it a different matter.
— tim wood

I can live with that. — TheMadFool

No, you shouldn't.

All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.

Valid, but not sound.

On the other hand, symmetry = invariance under transformations.

There are two ways to relate to your axiom at 1:
A. As a third party observer, external to the universe and its ‘symmetry’;
B. As an aspect within the universe, subject to this ‘symmetry’.

If we assume the third party observer (ie. abstraction), then the rest of the argument logically follows (barring your understanding of ‘symmetry’, but I’ll get to that). It is when we position ourselves within the universe (as we are) that we have to assume or embody one side of this ‘symmetry’ in order to ‘prove’ the other.

So, you ‘prove God’ (as per 6) only to the extent that you accept your own relative position as powerless, ignorant and bad. The moment you consider yourself to BE good, knowledgeable or capable even to a small degree, your relation to God as absolute dissolves.

My main issue with your thesis is that 2 does not follow from 1. A binary relation is asymmetrical - any claim of ‘symmetry’ is relative to a third party observer. As Rovelli says, “entanglement is not a dance for two partners, it is a dance for three”.

So what you consider to be ‘opposites’ are such only in relation to a third party observer. Symmetry is arguably more accurate and stable as a triadic relation - one where an observer can embody any position (eg. energy-quality-logic).

We are limited by our system’s unavoidable relation to everything else (gravity), by the variability this entails in the system (randomness), and by its finite access to energy (physical). But by the same token, more information can always be acquired about a system: anti-gravity, determinism, the non-physical and God represent awareness of relative powerlessness and ignorance, and our efforts (both good and bad) to relate to this. We can only imagine a third party observer external to these qualities in the universe, and so we strive for an understanding of ourselves in relation to them.

Information about what, exactly. Don't answer reflexively but think about it first.

And I'll note that the site mentions duality. Why not triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so forth? — tim wood

Good advice. I'll take it. That said, my intention was to point you to a reference on the dynamic nature of Yin and yang since you were implying balance (a feature of dualistic thought) is stasis.

What do you mean by "triality,..."? @baker shares your sentiments on this issue. The following few paragraphs are addressed to both of you.

First off, I have to admit that reality is more nuanced and subtle than supposed by dualistic, yin-yang paradigms. I remember employing the term spectrum à la the electromagnetic spectrum as an appropriate concept to capture the finer points of the universe. The spectral nature of reality is what you two are talking about and I concede that to be undeniably true.

The catch though is that yin-yang/duality is about extremes and how they interact with each other, these interactions spawning a multitude of points (the third, the middle way, Aristotle's golden mean, being the most obvious) between them. For instance, hot and cold produce tepid/lukewarm (the third value). Yin-yang/dualism, as you can see, doesn't ignore these in-between states (triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so on). In fact, yin-yang specifically mentions flux - the constant flow between extremes - and implicit in this is what two of you are talking about (triality, quadrality, quintrality, etc.)

Where were we? Ah, yes. Yin-yang/dualism is about extremes - the ends of everything in our spectral universe. How does that bear on my Symmetry Argument/Method. In the simple of terms, if a thing (one extreme) then for certain an anti-thing (the other opposing extreme) and, as an acknowledgement to the two of you, everything in between. Symmetry requires this to be true and it gibes with yin-yang philosophy (the to and fro between extremes).

No, you shouldn't.

All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.

Valid, but not sound. — baker

This was what tim wood was advising me not to do, "answer reflexively." Sound advice. Take a look at preceding few paragraphs.

On the other hand, symmetry = invariance under transformations. — jgill

That's just one way of interpreting symmetry. I'm more concerned by the symmetry of the particle-antiparticle kind.

A binary relation is asymmetrical - any claim of ‘symmetry’ is relative to a third party observer — Possibility

We're part of the symmetry. The third party is an illusion or, to be blunt, the third party doesn't exist. How could one be both inside (a part of the universe) and also outside (not a part of the universe - the third party)?

The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang
— TheMadFool

It's really not, though. — Ying

Expand and elaborate, please!

The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white. — Gnomon

Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. Yin and yang are a dynamic duo each serving as only the limits or extremes of a given spectrum (grey areas). All the yin-yang idea is claiming is that there's a flux/flow between extremes that necessarily traverses the grey zone between black and white.

This makes sense. After all for a continuous spectrum there are infinite points in the grey zone. How many subdivisions of the middle zone do you want to create? It's both impractical and also misses the point of dualism/yin-yang to propose anything other than a dualistic paradigm for reality.

Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :smile: — Gnomon

What's the difference between complementarity and symmetry? One that comes to mind is that the former is constructive (something better than the two opposites emerges from the interaction) while the latter is destructive (the opposites annihilate each other).

Symmetry as yin-yang seems to encompass both views - constructive pairs and destructive pairs. I'm by and large interested in the latter.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

:up:

A binary relation is asymmetrical - any claim of ‘symmetry’ is relative to a third party observer
— Possibility

We're part of the symmetry. The third party is an illusion or, to be blunt, the third party doesn't exist. How could one be both inside (a part of the universe) and also outside (not a part of the universe - the third party)? — TheMadFool

Exactly - this is the problem with your thesis. Read the rest of what I wrote. I agree that we’re part of the symmetry, but any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party. If we are part of a binary relation, then we can only observe the other. And this isn’t symmetry.

Symmetry is ‘invariance under transformations’ (as per @jgill’s definition). In what way can we transform (by translating, reflecting, rotating or scaling) our relation to an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being that would preserve any of its features? Or more simply, in what way can we translate, reflect, rotate or scale any of these ‘symmetry’ relations you’ve described in the OP - from our position within it - that would leave any property of the relation unchanged?

Yin and Yang, properly understood, are interchangeable - in symmetry, there is no preference for one side or the other - they are equally different. But this can only be achieved by accepting that we can embody both sides equally, or neither. It has nothing to do with what the extremes are - it’s about observing the symmetrical quality of any relation from outside of it. The third party is not an illusion - it’s necessary. It is commonly overlooked in Western approaches to Eastern philosophy that there is always a practical aspect: a way of interacting.

So, if we’re part of the symmetry, then the symmetry is not a binary relation - some inherent dance of opposites. It has to be minimally triadic. Yin-yang is not universal symmetry - the symmetry lies in our observation/understanding of yin-yang. It’s a dance for three. As is any symmetry of the particle/anti-particle kind.

First off, I have to admit that reality is more nuanced and subtle than supposed by dualistic, yin-yang paradigms. — TheMadFool

Actually, just different. Which is pretty much my whole point. Yin-yang, and all other "template" theories are really about the theories themselves and the people who entertain them. In short, why talk about them if it's the universe - or anything else - that's the topic? Poetic insight? Maybe. But that only goes so far, and not very far at that.

At best they - the "theories" - seem opportunistic, by which I mean they impress people who are inclined for some or other reason to be impressed by them.

A quantum particle is in all states at the same time. What IS and what is the anti-IS there?