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. — Possibility

Symmetry, in the context that you seem to be concerned about, seems limited to the number 2 (binary). Hence, your objection since you seem to detect a third party. You say, "...any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party." What you're saying is that dualistic symmetry can only be in the presence of a third party. That's your position on the issue.

Firstly, you've made a statement the relevants part of which I've reproduced above for clarification purposes but, do forgive my lack of astuteness, I don't see an argument backing up your claim of the necessity for a third party for the symmetry to hold. You do realize that you concede that there are two sides in play, otherwise the "third" in your third party doesn't make sense. If there are two (sides), the duality, yin-yang, the symmetry is complete. A third party neither makes nor breaks the 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? — Possibility

:ok: Thanks. It seems irrelevant to the kind of duality I'm interested in viz. the matter-antimatter kind. Good to know though.

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 — Possibility

Well you have a lot of explaining to do then? Here I am observing the duality of hot vs cold. I also appreciate my participation in the duality of gender. Too, I'm alive and thinking (fingers crossed) as opposed to something dead and unthinking. These are all instances of me becoming cognizant of my own role in the duality of yin-yang. Am I outside myself? To recognize, to become aware, of the duality, the yim-yang of it all doesn't require a third party. Plus, playing the devil's advocate here, this mysterious third party will automatically it seems constitute a duet with an anti third party.

Yin-yang is about extremes. Examine it closely.

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. — tim wood

Pyschology maybe crucial to the issue indeed. Nevertheless, I do like a cold drink on a hot summer day and my worn out old down jacket on a cold winter night.

Symmetry, in the context that you seem to be concerned about, seems limited to the number 2 (binary). Hence, your objection since you seem to detect a third party. You say, "...any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party." What you're saying is that dualistic symmetry can only be in the presence of a third party. That's your position on the issue.

Firstly, you've made a statement the relevants part of which I've reproduced above for clarification purposes but, do forgive my lack of astuteness, I don't see an argument backing up your claim of the necessity for a third party for the symmetry to hold. You do realize that you concede that there are two sides in play, otherwise the "third" in your third party doesn't make sense. If there are two (sides), the duality, yin-yang, the symmetry is complete. A third party neither makes nor breaks the symmetry. — TheMadFool

My position is that dualism is asymmetrical when viewed from within. The apparent symmetry of any dualistic philosophy conceals a third relational aspect. Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. So this completion of symmetry is necessarily inclusive of a third party, regardless whether or not it is ‘perceived’ as such by any party.

Try Edward Abbott Abbott’s ‘Flatland: a Romance of Many Dimensions’.

Here I am observing the duality of hot vs cold. I also appreciate my participation in the duality of gender. Too, I'm alive and thinking (fingers crossed) as opposed to something dead and unthinking. These are all instances of me becoming cognizant of my own role in the duality of yin-yang. Am I outside myself? To recognize, to become aware, of the duality, the yim-yang of it all doesn't require a third party. Plus, playing the devil's advocate here, this mysterious third party will automatically it seems constitute a duet with an anti third party. — TheMadFool

No, it won’t automatically constitute a duet - the ‘anti third party’ is the duality with which it interacts. And you’re not understanding yin-yang here, which demonstrates that any difference between hot and cold, alive and dead or male and female is arbitrary without an affected third party to distinguish between them. A third party enables awareness of difference between dark and light - this awareness is fundamental to the notion of yin-yang. You’re attributing five-dimensional self-awareness to two- and three-dimensional structures. Of course you are outside of your ‘self’ when you cognise its role in the duality of yin-yang.

My position is that dualism is asymmetrical when viewed from within. The apparent symmetry of any dualistic philosophy conceals a third relational aspect. Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. So this completion of symmetry is necessarily inclusive of a third party, regardless whether or not it is ‘perceived’ as such by any party. — Possibility

Reasons? None given!

No, it won’t automatically constitute a duet - the ‘anti third party’ is the duality with which it interacts — Possibility

What are you saying? It would/it wouldn't.

↪Gnomon
I think what ↪Ying
was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism: — javra

Perhaps. But I was replying to Tim's implication that "balance" must be static. It's true that perfect balance would be "static" and frozen due to the cessation of motion. But that's not a description of our ever-changing world. Instead, positive and negative forces in the universe, seem to be balanced just enough to allow for the emergence of Life & Mind, which would not survive a more chaotic environment.

I interpret the circle that encloses the swirling black & white forms to symbolize the dynamic balance of a whole (non-dual) system consisting of (dual) diametrically opposing forces. A static balance would be symbolized as equal halves of the circle. ◑ But a slight imbalance would allow for change. ☯ :cool:


Is the world balanced? :
Yes! It is. The world exists because there is a balance, a balance slightly in favor of stabilizing forces as opposed to destabilizing forces, . . .
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-balanced

Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. — TheMadFool

OK. :smile:

No, it won’t automatically constitute a duet - the ‘anti third party’ is the duality with which it interacts
— Possibility

What are you saying? It would/it wouldn't. — TheMadFool

It wouldn’t - not automatically. I will concede that we have a tendency to consolidate towards dualism, but as a symmetry this is ignorant and ultimately self-destructive.

But let me see if I can understand where you’re coming from...

If a universal symmetry of only two equal and distinct aspects existed as such, then it would immediately dissolve (as 180 states). The fact that our universe doesn’t, suggests that either:
1. The relational structure is not equal (dualistic);
2. The relational structure is not differentiated (monistic); or
3. The relation structure is not dual (triadic).

The first option I imagine is yours, and consists of an upper and lower limitation/extreme. It is most accurately rendered as a radial symmetry, a circle, like we perceive electrons in an atomic structure. Another example of this is geocentrism. This is what you’re referring to when you talk about matter/anti-matter, gravity/anti-gravity, determinism/randomness, ignorant/all-knowing, etc.

It’s important to note that an efficient rendering of any symmetry relation is always missing one aspect, which is the reference point to be assumed in relation to it. A circle shows only one point, equidistant from a reference point which is assumed from the structure. This dualistic symmetry refers to an equal and distinct variability of one aspect in relation to another. Which aspect is matter and which is anti-matter makes no difference - one automatically assumes the other, and it is only the relation that we perceive and name ‘matter’.

Yet you’re not understanding dualistic symmetry as circular. Instead you refer to it as yin-yang, which you claim is the same idea. It isn’t - it’s a rendering of triadic symmetry using a dualistic structure. The symmetry of the yin-yang symbol is in our relation to its duality: assuming a variable reference point (an observer) in relation to it.

So, if we’re looking at matter/anti-matter for instance as a yin-yang structure (with both aspects perceivable), then we’re assuming a reference point outside of it. Which means that we’re no longer looking at a dualistic relation, but a triadic one. The third reference point can be assumed fixed and central in relation to two differentially variable points, or variable in relation to a dualistic relation of two definitive ‘opposites’ (ie. the black and white symbol). It’s like the difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric perspective. Applying the notion of yin-yang as a dynamic symmetry enables us to perceive, explore and understand all three reference points in relation to each other, not just the two opposites in relation to ‘us’ as a fixed point.

The map is not the territory. “Ceci n’est pas un pipe” (Magritte). The yin-yang symbol is not the symmetry.

So, if we’re looking at matter/anti-matter for instance as a yin-yang structure (with both aspects perceivable), then we’re assuming a reference point outside of it. — Possibility

You've not argued your position! Argumentum ad nauseum! :vomit:

.

Thing vs Anti-thing! — TheMadFool

Also:

The weak force promotes changeability; the strong force promotes stability.

Molecules are neither prone to break apart and react with something nor to remain intact.

Energy doesn't change everything all at once not does it take forever to do anything.

One stable positive matter particle in free space—the proton; one stable negative matter particle in free space—the electron. One stable energy particle in free space—the photon. This is a curious symmetry suggesting that there are only those number of ways to make stable particles in free space (and their anti-particles).

The negative potential energy of gravity balances (cancels) the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

Electric charge polarity plus and minus.

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

I think there is a fundamental flaw here - but forgive me if my explanation of this is not clear. I’ll try a different approach.

If the universe has symmetry, then it does NOT follow that every property or quality of the universe is symmetrical at every level of awareness. Gravity is qualitatively different from matter, which is qualitatively different from particles, etc. So it does NOT follow that ‘for every thing there must be an anti-thing’. 2 does not necessarily follow from 1.

The gravity/anti-gravity relation has potential symmetry with five-dimensional awareness, but not four - only one or the other can be observed/measured as an event, and neither can be rendered in only three dimensions (let alone two).

The matter/anti-matter relation has actual symmetry with four-dimensional awareness, but not three - only one or the other can exist as an object, and neither can be rendered in two dimensions.

Proton/electron (or atomic structure) has predictable symmetry in three dimensions, but not two - only one can be predicted as a wavefunction, and neither can be rendered as a linear structure.

Particle spin (positive/negative) has symmetry in two dimensions, but not one. One cannot exist without the other.

The yin-yang symbol is a rendering of this positive/negative symmetry at the base of all existence - but it can only be interpreted as such in five-dimensional awareness.

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

As for our perceived impotence, ignorance and evil in relation to ‘God’, the symmetry of this relation is beyond even five-dimensional awareness. To predict our own potential to act, to know or to do good either breaks symmetry here, or disproves ‘God’. A universe in which our relation to ‘God’ has symmetry must be at least six-dimensional.

If the universe has symmetry, then it does NOT follow that every property or quality of the universe is symmetrical at every level of awareness. Gravity is qualitatively different from matter, which is qualitatively different from particles, etc. So it does NOT follow that ‘for every thing there must be an anti-thing’. 2 does not necessarily follow from 1. — Possibility

Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing.

Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested.

Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. — Possibility

That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang.

Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing. — TheMadFool

A human being. An ant. An apple. A cheesecake. Need I go on?

Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested. — TheMadFool

Read ‘Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions’ by Edwin A. Abbott, for starters.

That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang. — TheMadFool

Only because you refuse to see it any other way. I’m not invoking a third party, but evoking it. That third party is YOU, the observer who names ‘yin and ‘yang’ as such. If nothing else existed in the universe, then the existence of this yin-yang duality is contingent upon the existence of an observer, one aware of the distinction, who embodies/integrates this duality (or not). Such is the case for any duality you care to name.

Can you name your own ‘anti-’? Have you noticed what happens to your dimensional perspective of ‘self’ when you try? To imagine the dissolution of yin-yang or any such dualism is to call into question our own consciousness. It’s easy to assume that the foundation of all existence then is dualism, but we can equally assume that the foundation of all existence (as we understand it) is consciousness.

From Carlo Rovelli’s ‘Helgoland’:

“Facts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another.”

“To say that two objects are correlated means to articulate something with regard to a third object: the correlation manifests itself when two correlated objects both interact with this third object, which can check.”

This is not symmetry, but a relation between two and five dimensional existence. There is no invariance under transformation here. A symmetrical universe makes no distinction between unity and diversity, or between existence and non-existence, between yin and yang, possibility and impossibility. Symmetry is not in the duality but in its dissolution - recognising its ultimate contingency.

Language fails us here, but the basic gist of it is that symmetry is not opposition, but relation. Duality is contingent upon awareness, and vice versa, necessitating a triadic relation as the foundation of any ‘thing’. Without this third party, there is no ‘thing’ or ‘anti-thing’, only potentiality.

:flower:

:flower: :grin:

:flower:

I could entertain the concept that two alien realities once collided, resulting in sound and movement, but I don't see opposites per se. I don't see light as necessarily the "opposite" of dark. It's just an abstraction from dark, and there could conceivably be another abstraction to complement darkness, who knows.

I could entertain the concept that two alien realities once collided, resulting in sound and movement, but I don't see opposites per se — theRiddler

What's your definition of opposite?

Will reply later.

I'm not sure there is such a thing, to be extremely anal. There are so many shades of gray.

Update

1. My take on yin-yang is that they are opposites in a mathematical sense, like +y and -y. Bring them together like so: +y + -y and you get 0, nought. This cancelling of each member of a yin-yang pair is what balance/equilibrium is. This is both destructive (extremes are annihilated, +y and -y are gone ) and constructive (extremes are replaced by an in-between state, 0). Don't be fooled by 0, it doesn't mean nothing in this case. It only means, to use a warfare analogy, the two opposing sides are equally matched, a draw so to speak.

2. Yin-yang pairs are an universal feature in nature, in the universe itself. @Possibility mentioned apples, humans, ants, cheesecake etc. don't have opposites.

These objects are subjected to forces that are yin-yang in nature - humans are torn ( :chin: ) between good and bad, apples live and die, ants too, cheesecake are warm and then become cold.

Too, humans vs non-humans, apples vs non-apples, ants vs non-ants, cheesecake vs non-cheesecakes - even a child ( :wink: ) can think of an appropriate opposite for these items, either as a class or singly. Pay attention to what these things are and what happens to them.

I agree/disagree with you theMadFool, there is a lot of asymmetry too.

If the universe was symmetrical, moving things would become dishevelled; they wouldn't hold up in such a perfect state.

Take, per se, a flat plane. The only positions available in such a perfect state would be checkered like a chess board, anything coming off diagonally or strange would result in dishevellment.

Is perfect/perfect symmetry?

The universe is more asymmetric than symmetric, but harmony of compound asymmetrical parts has resulted in symmetrical forms.

Life is more about symmetry than asymmetry, but the universe is definitely not symmetric.

It brings about the notion that for harmony to be obtained must it pass through a symmetry check?

1. My take on yin-yang is that they are opposites in a mathematical sense, like +y and -y. Bring them together like so: +y + -y and you get 0, nought. This cancelling of each member of a yin-yang pair is what balance/equilibrium is. This is both destructive (extremes are annihilated, +y and -y are gone ) and constructive (extremes are replaced by an in-between state, 0). Don't be fooled by 0, it doesn't mean nothing in this case. It only means, to use a warfare analogy, the two opposing sides are equally matched, a draw so to speak. — TheMadFool

So, what you’re saying is that there exists another state, between +y and -y, that you call 0, and that this ‘in-between state’ is the balance/equilibrium, or symmetry. This 0 is manifest either as nothing (where +y and -y cancel each other out) or as something: “the correlation manifests itself when the two correlated objects both interact with a third object, which can check”. This third object is you. As Rovelli states: “the existence of a third object that interacts with both systems is necessary to give reality to the correlations.” You can abstract and talk about a ‘mathematical sense’ all you want, but in reality, 0 is either nothing or something. If it’s nothing, then +y and -y do cancel each other out. If it’s something, then there are three players in the game, not two, and there is no ‘cancelling out’; only ignorance/isolation/exclusion.

2. Yin-yang pairs are an universal feature in nature, in the universe itself. Possibility mentioned apples, humans, ants, cheesecake etc. don't have opposites.

These objects are subjected to forces that are yin-yang in nature - humans are torn ( :chin: ) between good and bad, apples live and die, ants too, cheesecake are warm and then become cold. — TheMadFool

You’re referring here to yin-yang pairs as potential properties of an object ‘in nature’. This is applying your mathematical values of +y, -y or 0 to an observation/measurement in time. From any observer’s point in spacetime (4D), a cheesecake (3D) is observed as warm or cold, an apple is observed as living or dead, a human is observed as good or bad. But “facts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another”.

What you’re describing is a dance of three: the necessity of a third player in what you consider to be a ‘duality’. Nothing is cancelled out or ‘replaced’ here. A cheesecake observed as warm is not precluded from being cold. In fact, what you consider to be a ‘warm’ cheesecake, I might argue is ‘cold’. These are not opposites, but are properties or facts relative to the observer.

Too, humans vs non-humans, apples vs non-apples, ants vs non-ants, cheesecake vs non-cheesecakes - even a child ( :wink: ) can think of an appropriate opposite for these items, either as a class or singly. Pay attention to what these things are and what happens to them. — TheMadFool

And now you’re back to five-dimensional abstraction, describing not ‘items’ or objects observed in nature or in time, but perceived concepts or patterns of potential. ‘Non-apple’ is not an item in reality, but an indeterminate value in relation to your experience/knowledge relative to the concept ‘apple’. It is your remaining perception of potentiality from which ‘apple’ is differentiated - the background or negative potential, so to speak. And your differentiation of apple vs non-apple is not identical to mine - the joint properties of these two concepts as a ‘duality’ exist only in relation to one’s perception.

The apparent duality of the universe is a reductionist perspective - its potential symmetry is contingent upon an external perception: what you refer to as 0, the relational structure that necessarily exists between the two. The yin-yang symbol as rendered is the third aspect that is necessary for symmetry, whether it is rendered as ink on a page, stones in a mosaic or pixels on a screen. But the symmetry of yin-yang has nothing to do with the opposition of light and dark (which is a Western interpretation), and everything to do with quality, energy and logic. To focus on ‘opposites’ in yin-yang is to miss the point entirely.

So, what you’re saying is that there exists another state, between +y and -y, that you call 0, and that this ‘in-between state’ is the balance/equilibrium, or symmetry. This 0 is manifest either as nothing (where +y and -y cancel each other out) or as something: “the correlation manifests itself when the two correlated objects both interact with a third object, which can check”. This third object is you. As Rovelli states: “the existence of a third object that interacts with both systems is necessary to give reality to the correlations.” You can abstract and talk about a ‘mathematical sense’ all you want, but in reality, 0 is either nothing or something. If it’s nothing, then +y and -y do cancel each other out. If it’s something, then there are three players in the game, not two, and there is no ‘cancelling out’; only ignorance/isolation/exclusion — Possibility

Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would.

And now you’re back to five-dimensional abstraction, describing not ‘items’ or objects observed in nature or in time, but perceived concepts or patterns of potential. ‘Non-apple’ is not an item in reality, but an indeterminate value in relation to your experience/knowledge relative to the concept ‘apple’. It is your remaining perception of potentiality from which ‘apple’ is differentiated - the background or negative potential, so to speak. And your differentiation of apple vs non-apple is not identical to mine - the joint properties of these two concepts as a ‘duality’ exist only in relation to one’s perception. — Possibility

Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though).

The apparent duality of the universe is a reductionist perspective - its potential symmetry is contingent upon an external perception: what you refer to as 0, the relational structure that necessarily exists between the two. The yin-yang symbol as rendered is the third aspect that is necessary for symmetry, whether it is rendered as ink on a page, stones in a mosaic or pixels on a screen. But the symmetry of yin-yang has nothing to do with the opposition of light and dark (which is a Western interpretation), and everything to do with quality, energy and logic. To focus on ‘opposites’ in yin-yang is to miss the point entirely — Possibility

Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you.

Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would. — TheMadFool

You say this, but how would you know? Sun and snow would exist, sure, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between them as hot and cold, near and far, up and down. Yinyang, too, would exist, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between yin and yang, let alone any recognition of ‘opposites’.

The tai-chi symbol commonly used to depict yin-yang is the simplest description of the relation between unity and diversity. It is not a static symbol, but an expression of the dynamic relationship between multiple aspects of a whole, in which ‘opposition’ or duality is only a surface appearance: an initial encounter with consciousness. Like most Eastern philosophy, it doesn’t attempt to define reality, but is understood only when this encounter with our physical existence is factored in.

Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though). — TheMadFool

As real as apples? Does this mean you can visually describe or define a non-apple for me, in the same way that you can visually define an apple? Can you distinguish a non-apple from anything other than an apple? ‘Non-apple’ refers to anything and everything that is not an apple, from an orange to stardust out beyond Mars. It is an indeterminate concept, as real as the concept ‘apple’ and its potential, but not as definitive as the apple I hold in my hand, or the one I ate yesterday. These I can describe in great detail, and their descriptions will be different from each other in small ways, but will have many similar properties. A ‘non-apple’ is defined only by its relationship to the concept ‘apple’. An orange is an example of a non-apple, but is no more the opposite of an apple than stardust.

It is only in potentiality that the relationship between apple and non-apple has duality. That’s not to say it isn’t real, but that this existence is potential, not actual. It consists of language, experience, knowledge, thought, perception, intention, value, etc. You can’t fully demonstrate the relationship between apple and non-apple in nature - you can only offer examples of the conceptual duality, relative to your perception of it, and construct a similar concept in the perception, experience, language, etc of another. Conscious existence is key.

Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Recognising opposites is just the initial encounter. It’s what happens next - the dance between unity and diversity in your experience - that is what yin-yang is about. Pay attention to how your consciousness can shift between unity, duality and diversity as you strive to understand the yin-yang symbol. There is no symmetry, no stability in an encounter with duality that doesn’t resort to ignorance, isolation or exclusion. There is unity and there is complex diversity - and duality is just an heuristic device to get you from one to the other.

You say this, but how would you know? Sun and snow would exist, sure, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between them as hot and cold, near and far, up and down. Yinyang, too, would exist, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between yin and yang, let alone any recognition of ‘opposites’. — Possibility

I agree that consciousness, I really hope we're tuned into the same channel here, plays a significant role in duality; after all it's a point of view, a way of looking at the world. However, I'm reluctant to say it's all up here, in the head. After all, empirical data of the world does yield a yin-yang pattern in reality.

I've heard of non-duality (advaita vedanta for example) but haven't studied the arguments. Too, non-duality is said to be self-refuting since it stands in opposition to duality forming a pair.

As real as apples? Does this mean you can visually describe or define a non-apple for me, in the same way that you can visually define an apple? Can you distinguish a non-apple from anything other than an apple? ‘Non-apple’ refers to anything and everything that is not an apple, from an orange to stardust out beyond Mars. It is an indeterminate concept, as real as the concept ‘apple’ and its potential, but not as definitive as the apple I hold in my hand, or the one I ate yesterday. These I can describe in great detail, and their descriptions will be different from each other in small ways, but will have many similar properties. A ‘non-apple’ is defined only by its relationship to the concept ‘apple’. An orange is an example of a non-apple, but is no more the opposite of an apple than stardust. — Possibility

You need to give this some more thought.

I agree that consciousness, I really hope we're tuned into the same channel here, plays a significant role in duality; after all it's a point of view, a way of looking at the world. However, I'm reluctant to say it's all up here, in the head. After all, empirical data of the world does yield a yin-yang pattern in reality. — TheMadFool

I’m certainly not saying it’s all in the head. There’s a tendency to assume non-duality must be idealistic monism (or else materialism), but I think this is a misunderstanding born of reductionism.

Empirical data is contingent not just upon an observer, but an actual observation/measurement event. An interaction in spacetime (4D). Non-duality in the sense that I’m referring to here, though, is not a reduction from five to four-dimensional awareness, but a paradigmatic shift from five to six-dimensional awareness.

I've heard of non-duality (advaita vedanta for example) but haven't studied the arguments. Too, non-duality is said to be self-refuting since it stands in opposition to duality forming a pair. — TheMadFool

There is no argument. Advaita (non-duality) is not in opposition to forming a pair, but rather dissolves the necessity for distinction by understanding that Atman IS Brahman. Just as the eternal Tao is the ten thousand things, unnamed. In the realm of possibility, diversity is identical to unity, and vice versa. This is what is meant by ‘invariance under transformation’. It’s not really a way of looking at the world, but rather a way of understanding it so that we can more accurately perceive potential from a variety of perspectives, and from there more carefully and responsibly interact as part of the world.

I’m certainly not saying it’s all in the head. — Possibility

Then why are we arguing? :chin:

Empirical data is contingent not just upon an observer, but an actual observation/measurement event. An interaction in spacetime (4D). Non-duality in the sense that I’m referring to here, though, is not a reduction from five to four-dimensional awareness, but a paradigmatic shift from five to six-dimensional awareness. — Possibility

This is a classic case of obscurum per obscuris or even more accurately what we have here is full-blown case of Ignotum per æque ignotum.

There is no argument. Advaita (non-duality) is not in opposition to forming a pair, but rather dissolves the necessity for distinction by understanding that Atman IS Brahman. Just as the eternal Tao is the ten thousand things, unnamed. In the realm of possibility, diversity is identical to unity, and vice versa. This is what is meant by ‘invariance under transformation’. It’s not really a way of looking at the world, but rather a way of understanding it so that we can more accurately perceive potential from a variety of perspectives, and from there more carefully and responsibly interact as part of the world. — Possibility

Word play!