time, space and numbers.

if everything in the universe could be related to mathematics, which it cant be, then when we compare our lives to mathematics and ourselves to numbers we see that as there is no space between numbers there arises the concept of infinity. Between 1 and 2 there is 1.1 and 1.2 and between 1.1 and 1.2 there is 1.11 and 1. 12 and between them is 1.111 and 1.112 and so one. so when there is an infinite amount of numbers and possibilities numbers, we come to understand that there is similarly no space or difference between us and those around us, between the present, the future and the past. and all the while this is not true.


One response to “time, space and numbers.

  1. Very interesting.

    I wonder if what you find as a kind of gaplessness of numbers could (also) be seen as indication of gaps, indication that there is space or room, that there is incredible flexibility (folds) that can accommodate increasingly smaller decimals, fractions —apparently infinite increase of the infinitesimal, so there is room for these decimals, even if the location or space for them had not been considered previously

    —that is, when these decimals are considered, they assume a location. They come claim a location of acknowledged existence.

    In the human body, a journey inward, say into the hand (such as in the
    Eames film “Powers of Ten”), can arrive at increasingly smaller structures, the cellular structure of that hand, the structure of a single cell of the hand, the atomic structure, subatomic structure, etc. These infinitesimal or nano components are present, though not necessarily considered, their space or location overlooked, unclaimed by acknowledgement (which sort of constructs the space occupied through locating thr sturcture, putting it on some kind of map).

    And outside of vacuums, maybe we can consider the air between things, atoms between things, molecules and atoms between things as part of what maintains a gaplessness of experienced existence.

    At a certain extremely basic level, an atomic or subatomic level, for instance, most things can become a pattern, or a pattern can be revealed. Most things could be expressed as a pattern of its atomic structure, and in this expression, perhaps there is no difference, what may be understood as difference being more related to the arrangement of the atoms.

    I understand and appreciate your true/not true stance, the predicaments of context and perspective, where these overlap and diverge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s