(Permalink)(Was chapter 21 in version 1)

(Permalink) What I think is the most exact to say, about i, basis of the imaginary numbers, is that it results of a skilful use of a paradox: although it does not exist, it happened that it was very useful to do as if it existed, with a special axiom, passing over the very visible contradiction.

If the trick is blatant, in the case of the imaginary numbers, it is not unique. I would even say that it is rather general.

As a matter of facts, all the mathematic constructions contain such tricks, without which they would simply not work.

To start
with the famous Sets Theory that we saw in
chapter I-2.
We remember that this theory, basis of today
mathematics and its more complex buildings, contains two
contradictions, two paradoxes, two unsettlable statements, which were
however fixed with the help of the second and third axiom. Only the
first of the three axioms of the Sets Theory is really useful and
founder of something, the two others were created only to hide the
appearance of paradoxes. I clearly say to hide: if in the second
axiom one says «a set cannot be an element of itself» we
only *refuse to consider* sets which would contain themselves.
This is only a convention, because we can find such objects
(note
36). Moreover some mathematicians study them, and
this leads to the Supersets Theory. As to the third axiom, it is
about, as we noted, just a single paradox, that of «the set of
all the sets». This object exists, it matches a definition,
but, cumbersome and useless, it was decided to leave it on the
touchline, with the other hooligans which are contained into
themselves. What is important to retain about all this, is that
things like imaginary calculation or the Sets Theory contains
contradictions in their base. And if we excluded all what is
self-contradictory, then mathematics would be impossible, they would
not exist.

Of course, mathematicians do not like to see things presented in this way, since they are engaged in their quest for a perfect system explaining everything in an univocal way. However, demonstrations of the impossibility of such a system were brought several times in the early 20th Century. The most well known is the theorem of incompleteness of Gödel, which says that any set of axioms, complex enough to describe the set of natural numbers, leads inevitably to indemonstrable statements (paradoxes). Several similar theorems, more complex, were also demonstrated in the same epoch. Gödel's work remained for long in an obscure cupboard (with its buddies the merry gang of the odd consequences of Quantum Mechanics, you guess the party they did in there) because it was somewhat annoying for the mathematicians of the time. It even inspired masochist or down in the mouth philosophies about reality being definitively unknowable for us. The theorem of Gödel however does not prevent nature from being beautiful under the sun, and I even find it rather funny, standing there in the middle of the field. Because let us remind: reality exists, and it never lets itself stop by a paradox. When it meets one of them, it just uses this freedom to do what it wants.

This joke is not gratuitous: it means that when a natural law is no longer logically determined (for example when it leads to a logical paradox, or to infinite values) then other usually hidden laws, inhibited, will take the initiative and will determine what will occur. Reality never stops to exist.

Let
us take an example: the logical statement «A equals non-A»
is always false and it does not allow to
calculate A. In the material world, were created electronic circuits
called logical circuits, which voltages on their pins can take only
two states: for example all the voltage corresponds to a logical yes,
and no voltage corresponds to a logical no. The output pins achieve
logical combinations of the states present on the input pins: OR,
AND, NOT... These circuits are designed to function under all
conditions, and even if the voltages at the inputs are weakened or
has parasites, it is always yes or not. Thus we obtain that this
inevitably imperfect material object behaves nevertheless like a
perfect logical machine, free from any material defect. But we can
now have fun to materialise the preceding paradox, by connecting an
input A to an output non-A (the wire achieves the equality of the
voltage, and thus the logical equality). Whatever it will happen, it
will nevertheless happen something. Let us connect...
**Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!**
It is not a logical state (impossible to determine) the circuit
started to oscillate in high frequency, in an entirely different
operation mode, determined by its material defects such as its
inductance or parasitic resistors which do not play any role in its
normal logical operation. This operating mode appears only when a
logical paradox makes impossible a normal operation. This effect of
masked laws which appear when the foreground laws are logically
undetermined is very common in nature, and we could quote many other
cases in physics, electronics and elsewhere. We shall even see in
chapter IV-9 how it could
even make appear new laws of physics!

We can
always try to reassure ourselves with thinking that the theorem of
incompleteness is a concern for only some stale mathematicians
occupied in hair-splitting devoid of any practical interest. False
hope: in addition to mathematics, the physics theories all are
axiomatic systems, together with all the systems in religion,
philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, society, politics, economy,
industry, games, agriculture... **In other words we have to expect
to find paradoxes, statements impossible to settle, contradictions in
every aspects of our lives.**

Admittedly, most philosophical, political, ethical or religious disputes are caused by reasoning mistakes (dogmatism, ideologies, and all the troubles seen in chapter I-9) or prejudices on life (which are necessarily incompatibles). But we can find cases, in physics, in ethics, in spirituality, etc. where a paradox needs to be solved of one of the two possible way, so that the theory can work.

What I try
to introduce here is that there is nothing intrinsically bad to this
situation: just like it was done with the imaginary numbers or with
the sets, we can take profit of a paradox to modify any theory in a
way which fits our purposes. This is what I call the **creator
paradox,** or the **founder absurdity,** a key concept for the
continuation.

As a matter of facts, in more of having very useful practical uses, this method also works naturally, into the very way reality creates itself, including the physical reality. It is this way because physics obeys to logical laws, which can be described with an axiomatic system. If this axiomatic system has logical indeterminism, see paradoxes, this however not forbids the physical reality to continue to exist and to function: it reificates one of the two terms of the paradox, or it finds other laws allowing to skirt the problem. A paradox never stopped the world of running. (Note that at this point, we still consider the physical reality as something which behaves according to logical laws, while being distinct of them).

We can see this statement at work on a classical example of a paradox: the paradox of the barber, which is described in this way: «In a town, a barber shaves all the men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?» Presented in this way, it is impossible to reply yes or no to the question, as both replies are in logical contradiction with the statement. However, if ever this paradox is physically implemented, nothing prevents the barber of following the behaviour of his choice, or even a third like to let his beard grow. If we want to represent this full system with an axiomatic logical system, we are constrained to add a second axiom describing the behaviour of the barber. But we have several choices to do so: a hairless theory and a bearded one!

And without sad philosophy about unknowability...

We can find many examples in physics, where a logical indeterminism sees one of the possibilities reified, and only one. The clearest and most fundamental example is the quantum random: a particle will choose a state, and only one, among several logically allowed, without any logical determinism for one choice or another.

Even a mathematical series contains an indeterminacy: each term is defined only after the previous. For the series to be defined, we need to set an arbitrary value to any of its terms. The mathematicians do not speak of a paradoxe, but the operation of setting one term to define the whole series is definitively a paradoxe fixing.

For readers who are sensitive to the poetry of mathematics, there is a very beautiful image which visually illustrates this idea of creative absurdity, of contradiction necessary for the foundation of any logical system. They are the Penrose networks (named after their inventor Roger Penrose). They are tilling made from two basic tiles with a rhombus shape, and ornamented with patterns:

The rule for building the tiling is that the coloured curves must match from a tile to the other. This tiling makes possible to completely cover the plane (to pave the kitchen without leaving holes between the tiles) just as we do with square, hexagonal or triangular tiles. However they do this in a curious way: the pattern of tiles and the drawings formed by curved lines are both at random and never reproduce identically. It is a Penrose network.

A
Penrose network, once started, can continue ad infinitum, by adding
tiles according to given rules. But the most curious is that it seems
that the matching rule of the tiles *must*
be violated at the beginning, and then strictly respected (if not the
network gets blocked and we cannot continue it). Here is an example
of Penrose network, able to grow perfectly and ad infinitum, but
which shows two initial defects (close to the centre):

(Permalink)
In conclusion of this chapter, we shall give a **definition of the
existence of an ****axiomatic system** which will be one of the
most significant bases for the continuation:

1) An
axiomatic system, whatever it is, **exists when this existence does
not generate inner logical contradiction** (paradox,
indecidability...)

2) Any axiomatic system contains internal contradictions (Theorem of Gödel)

3) Rules 1
and 2 being contradictory, so that a axiomatic system can exist, it
is always necessary (rule 2) **to accept some founding
contradictions** (exceptions to rule 1) and to arbitrarily set a
value for them. But once this condition fulfilled, **the logical
rules must then be strictly respected. **

It is to be noted that these three statements themselves comply to the conditions they express!

The Sets Theory itself complies to these rules: two internal contradictions needed the second and third axiom, to ensure its coherence. A different second axiom leads to a different theory, the Supersets Theory.

In the history of my though, as young as my teens, I envisioned a «mathematics of objects which does not exist», especially like i or the set of all the sets. It is these speculations which led me to the above definition of existence.

This definition is equivalent to the first principle of metaphysics of the chapter III-2, in more detailed, for axiomatic systems.

We conclude from this, about the individual logical objects that this axiomatic system contains:

4) In a axiomatic system, an individual object, whatever it is, exists only if this existence does not generate any logical contradiction in its system (paradox, indecidability...) (with of course the exception of the objects involved into the founding paradox of the system).

The imaginary number i is an example of object involved in a founding paradox.

If there is a quasi absolute choice of the starting axioms, if we have some choice of values for some statements in order to settle the founding contradictions, we on the other hand do not have any more choice on their logical implications:

5) From a
set of axioms and values to founding contradictions, our axiomatic
system is **completely and rigorously determined,** up to an
infinite number of logical inferences. We can only explore it, but no
more modify it.

So it is now easy to understand how choosing arbitrarily one of the two incalculable values in a contradiction can found something, in «illogical» examples like the Set Theory, the calculation with the i number, or the Penrose network, and especially in the following examples in this part of the book. This strangely looks like an act of creation of a reality, comparable with the Divine Creation. But for now we can create only axiomatic systems!

This sub-chapter was reviewed and bettered May 2, 2019)

(Permalink)
A more subtle case is when logical indeterminisms
(chapter I-10)
appear, not at the moment of the
foundation, but later in the development. This can happen in many
ways: paradoxes, infinite values, and especially **actualisation
indeterminism**
(chapter I-10).
So what could happen?

6) **Special nib.** If a
lone indeterminism is isolated in a «region» of our
axiomatic system, we are free to actualise one of the contradictory
values, but the effect only takes place in this region, and not in
the remaining part of the system. Then we can have a new system with
different laws, which propagates independently of the first, that we call «forked».
This is a common occurrence in mathematics and in axiomatic systems.
This also is what physicists call a symmetry breaking, as we shall see in
the fourth part on physics, especially chapter
chapter IV-9. I called this
«creating new laws of physics», but we shall also see that this is probably how
free will operates (chapter V-3)
and all the psychophysical phenomena (seventh
part)

(Added May 2, 2019: I think I must finally clarify the notion of space domain (formerly texture). Physicists call this way a region of space with a different physics. This is thought to have happened during the early stages of the Big Bang. In the version 1 of this book, I was saying «a region of space with different laws of physics». Yet that space has properties contradicts the general vision of this book, where space is just a mathematical structure of the set of nibs. So I need to clarify, and say that a domain is a forked branch of a logical self-generation process of an universe. It may, or may not, match a region of space. The RHIC experiment produced such forking, with kaons having different properties. A common view, even among physicists, is that domains appeared in the quarks-gluons plasma. But I note that the modified kaons still propagated in our space, invalidating the notion that it is their place in space which determines the behaviour of particles. I evoke this further about vacuum in chapter IV-4, and the RHIC experiment in chapter IV-9)

**7) Ordinary nib.**If
there are actualisation indeterminisms at each logical implication in
our axiomatic system (at each step of its building) **so an
amount of freedom of evolution appears.** This seems to be the case
in Quantum Mechanics, basis of our physics, and this arises very
important questions which will be discussed in the
fourth part
on physics. But this obviously happens too in consciousness,
and thus also in psychical universes, that we shall study in the
fifth part on consciousness.

**8)** (Added in August 2018) The examples in points 6 and 7 all seem to obey **the
principle of economy of absurdity:** the parameters reified at
random still are within precise limits, only where they are not
already determined by previous inferences. In the case of quantum
mechanics it is obvious, but it also appears in the psychophysical
phenomena of the seventh part.
This is why I added this eighth definition, after realizing its
importance in writing these parts. It can be considered that it is a
rule of self-coherence, needed for the operating of reality: when an indeterminism appears,
what is reified is the least departure of the previous conditions..

We shall speak again with more details of the principle of economy of absurdity in chapter V-7

(Added on May 2, 2019: the principe of economy of absurdity would be at the origin of many phenomena. In physics, the conservation laws, or the fact that an ordinary quantum interaction 7) can produce only a limited set of values. In the spiritual domain, it would be at the origin of habit, and the difficulty to change, to evolve, what the religions call the karma. I study some aspects of this in the chapter V-10, about the «dissolution» of consciousness.)

**
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
**

**Legal notice and copyright **
Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches,
examples, quotes...), all the
texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors,
symbols
of this site are copyright of their author and right owner,
Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it
disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site
beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome.
No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me.
Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds
in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules,
may result into law suit.