Saturday, January 25, 2014

Sanity or Rationality

The fact of the case is we see what we perceive. Or is it the other way round.

The meaning of absolute is relative in human perspective. I have grown up thinking that in numerology the numbers denoted the idea of absolute but when it comes to the quantification of the number in itself then human kind is still fumbling with the true identity of the number in itself.

Well this may seem gibberish but to illustrate it let me say that from childhood we learned the numbers in a number system like 0, 1, 2 ….etc. etc.

Now the number 1 is a representation of absolute aspect like 1 pen, 1 men, 1 boy, 1 kilogram, 1 tonne, 1 kilometre and so on. But how did mankind perceive when it comes to quantify the true nature of one in itself and herein lays the fallacy of the term absolute.

 What is the true quantification of the number 1 or if I perceive the question in another manner does the number 1 represents anything which can be truly associated with the quantification of 1 in itself. That means can one identify the number of our number system without associating the same with anything.  To frame a simple question is “Do mankind have a true definition of any number like 0 or 1?”

Of late a latent clarity has crept up in my mind which made me perceive that the 0 actually has a true form of nonexistence which in turn can be depicted as 0 is absolute but somehow the mind cannot absolve the same for any other numbers.  

Zero mean, nonexistence, total obligation, non-presence or absence or anything. Then again does that means zero in absolute terms means non-existence? If so then the sanctity of the number zero is questioned in turn. If zero mean the absence of a substance then how can zero exists in absolute term in a number system? Does that means that the people who was looking for some number in the number system before 1 didn’t find anything and termed it zero because there was nothing present before one or was it because that person wanted to stop somewhere and assumed that the numbers did end somewhere and hence there would be nothing present there and termed that situation zero?

Now if you debate the same with any other number like say “1” then well,  in a number system 1 comes after zero. But you can break it further. 0.5 comes between 0 and 1 and then 0.25 comes between 0 and 0.5 and one can break the same into infinite such break ups. Here comes the catch of infinity. So the best fallacy of hypocrisy of our own measurement system comes here… between 0 and 1 there are infinite numbers and all real numbers. So one can safely say that infinites lies between 0 and 1 and yet one is still not sure how to quantify the three things viz. 0 , 1  and infinity.

Let’s say that if 0 means total darkness, non-presence or absence of anything in totally then 1 would mean just the opposite.  The presence or existence of number in its truest form.  Now subsequently if 1 represents 1 in its true absolute form then 1 cannot be perhaps used in a relative aspect to denote other substances like 1 cannot be used loosely to represent pen, pencil, man, woman, house, chicken, dog, biscuit, meter, kilometre etc. 

I mean how can we use the same scale of measurement unit for everything. The question is can everything be measured in one scale rather than varying scales of measurement in order to make life easy while one is shifting more and more from absolute form of measurement system to relative and comparative form of measurement system

Infinite is a substance or a distance? Infinite means endless which again is a relative term or is it the lack of perspective of mankind or the failure to quantify the true nature of number that has led one to believe in infinite.  The quintessential question that now arises is though mankind is such a logical and rational life form, yet the whole theory of counting has been based and form out of a relative system rather than that of an absolute system. This in turn would question the logical and rational thought process of mankind in itself. 

 Does it means that what is defined as sanity and insanity based on the rational thinking may vary with changing perspective with time?

No comments: