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:

Post a Comment