Harmonic Opposites: Explained

[Clipper]

I didn't explain in an elegant and detailed way before, I just plastered the page with senseless drivel that made no sense. I'm going to try and explain what a Harmonic Opposite is, as I used it in my last thread many times, in a confusing manner.

 

A harmonic opposite can only be explained if you relate it to life. It cannot be explained with English word, as many words are man-made, theatrical, not-real. If I say to you: E=MC2, you immediately think energy. The equation is here to simplify a bigger question. I don't think it's possible to describe it in any way but using numbers and reality.

 

Below I'll write a key, putting factors to numbers:

 

1 = Man

2 = Woman

3 = Baby

4 = Evolve

 

In life, we see opposites, existing as opposites. While this is hard to grasp, keep reading and I'll try to explain it in more detail.

 

1 = Father Father = 1

2 = Mother Mother = 2

3 = Baby Baby = 3

4 = Evolve Evolve = 4

 

Without these 8 Crucial factors, we cease to exist. I'll explain; Father and Mother create a Baby in their image. The Baby then lives until it evolves, into a Mother or Father, who then continues to live. The Baby no longer exists once it has evolved, so we can say that it has died, and gave life to a Mother or Father, who continue to live.

 

These opposites; Mother and Father, Baby and Evolve. Can also be seen as, Baby and Mother, Father and Evolve, as the Mother was once a Baby, and the Father will die, Evolving from a Father, into death; as the Baby did before it. I look for other terms than Evolve but I cannot find none. A father can also see or interact with another Father, as a Mother can with a Mother, and a Baby with a Baby, and Evolve with Evolve .

(sauce a)

[1 + 1] This represents; Father and Father.

[2 + 2] This represents; Mother and Mother.

[3 + 3] This represents; Baby and Baby

[4 + 4] This represents; Evolve and Evolve

 

Now let's work the magic:

[1 + 1] meets [2 + 2] - Creating [3 + 3].

 

The problem here is that without Evolve or [4 + 4], neither the mother or father would exist in the first place. They would not be ageing or living and the Baby would not be able to reproduce, as it would not be Evolving into a Mother or Father. So along with the Baby, Evolve is produced.

 

[1 + 1] [2 + 2] [3 + 3] [4 + 4]

 

Not only do we have 4 sets of opposites, but we have 2 harmonic opposites. Which can be seen as:

 

[1+1 2+2]

[3+3 4+4]

 

They all exist as opposites, only as opposites of each other. Father and Mother, Baby and Mother, Father and Evolve, Evolve and Baby, and so on.

 

Father and Mother - Opposite.

Baby and Mother - A Mother was a Baby.

Father and Evolve - Father will evolve into death.

 

Without going off topic, the harmony in the opposites only stays at these points: 4 sets of opposites, 8 sets of opposites, 16 sets of opposites, doubling every time.

 

[1+1]|-|[2+2]

[3+3]|-|[4+4]

[5+5]|-|[6+6]

[7+7]|-|[8+8]

 

As you can see, [1+1] and [2+2] are opposites of [3+3] and [4+4].

But [1+1] [2+2] [3+3] [4+4] are opposites of [5+5] [6+6] [7+7] [8+8], which are also opposites of each other in themselves.

 

[5+5] - [6+6]

[7+7] - [8+8]

 

That's how the harmony works; and it's based on the only rule of existence; opposites. If you replace the first key (source a), with Up Down Left Right, you'll notice the harmony.

 

[1+1] - [2+2]

[3+3] - [4+4]

 

The moving on to the next jump.

 

[5+5] - [6+6]

[7+7] - [8+8]

 

Which would be; front and back, top and bottom; existing as harmonic opposites of the before.

 

I can't explain it better than that, If it doesn't make sense then I'm tripping.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

[1,2] [3,4] [5,6] [7,8] [9,10] [11,12] [13,14] [15,16]

[17,18] [19,20] [21,22] [23,24] [25,26] [27,28] [29,30] [31,32]

[33,34] [35,36] [37,38] [39,40] [41,42] [43,44] [45,46] [47,48]

[49,50] [51,52] [53,54] [55,56] [57,58] [59,60] [61,62] [63,64]

 

Is how the harmonics would look at the 5th Jump. I think.

I said in my previous topic, there are 2 colours of human, white and black, then mixtures in-between. 64 possibilities. I just found out that there are 256 shades of grey, between black and white. Which, coincidently, is 64 x 4.

 

I really don't know guys, seems pretty water-tight to me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And a cube. It has 4 sides; a top, a bottom, a left and a right

It also has a front and a back, whichever way you look at it.

It has 8 corners.

It has 16 edges.

 

[2 4]

[8 16]

 

The front and back contain all 16 edges.

The front and back contain all 8 corners

The 8 corners are on all 4 sides (4 on each)

There are 2 corners to each of the 16 edges

The 4 sides have 16 edges, (4 on each)

 

Would you call our front a side? To put it simple, it's just our front; and our back is our back. Same with a cube, if you look at it, you're looking at it's front.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I love it how in my head I'm saying

 

"ITS SOMETHING TO DO WITH A CUBE!!"

"THE NUMBER 4"

 

I think I'm going insane; I shall go elsewhere and relax for a short period.

Toodle Pip!

[iNow]

And a cube. It has 4 sides; a top, a bottom, a left and a right

It also has a front and a back, whichever way you look at it.

 

<...>

 

I really don't know guys, seems pretty water-tight to me.

 

Actually, cubes have six sides. It seems you've sprung a leak by forgetting front and back.

 

 

Do you think there's any chance we could use Febreeze to successfully eliminate the smell of numerology from your posts?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think I'm going insane

This has a high probability of being accurate. I say, go with it. See where the rabbit's hole takes you (as long as it takes you away from SFN, I don't care).

Edited May 23, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Clipper]

How is the front and back a side?

It's the front and back.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Were you educated in this way?

Oh, it must be true then,

 

Brb, getting the newspaper to get some 100% true information about world happenings.

 

I bet you believe -1 x -1 = 1 also...

[iNow]

Were you educated in this way?

 

Yes, part of my education was learning how to successfully count from 1 to 6.

[Clipper]

Would you call your front and back, sides?

 

If my back itches, I scratch my back.

If my front itches, I scratch my front.

I have 2 sides, my arms and legs tell me where they are

I have a top and a bottom.

 

However, when I look forwards I can see the top and the bottom in-front of me, whilst I cant see the back.

 

A cube, face to face, has 4 sides, a front and back.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okaayyyy. Now we've sorted that one.

Anyone bold enough to prove my theory wrong; or you guys all suffering from NPD.

[the tree]

A theory produces testable predictions.

 

A cube has 6 sides.

 

And (-1)x(-1)=1.

[swansont]

How many sides does a möbius strip have?

[mooeypoo]

Would you call your front and back, sides?

You fall into a very common misconception here, by reducing things that have more than two options into two simplistic options. After doing that, no wonder things fit your theory.

 

The thing is, science goes the other way - you first see how things *are* and *then* you can describe them.

 

Fior that matter, Clipper, there's not just 'back' and 'front' to your body (not just to a cube). There's also the sides (or so I hope, unless you're a flat cartoon ). Also, the body is round - so in principle it has infinite amount of sides.

 

If my back itches, I scratch my back.

If my front itches, I scratch my front.

What happens if the bottom of your foot itches?

 

have 2 sides, my arms and legs tell me where they are

I have a top and a bottom.

What about the sides? What about the bottom of your midsection (the part connecting your legs) versus the bottom of your feet?

 

You're oversimplifying, and the theory makes sense *only* when you oversimplify. Once you see there are more than two sides to a three-dimensional existence (by definition... ) your theory falls on its face.

 

If you're interested in being a scientist, you need to make sure your thinking follows the methodology. Simplification is useful, but oversimplification runs the risk of discribing nonreality rather than reality.

 

Instead, you should see how the world actually is, and then see if you have a theory that explains it. As it goes at the moment, your idea seems to fall flat on everything that isn't flat.

 

However, when I look forwards I can see the top and the bottom in-front of me, whilst I cant see the back.

 

A cube, face to face, has 4 sides, a front and back.

It has 6 sides, that's the point. A *rectangle* has four sides. It's also flat. Two dimensional.

 

You *could* try and make the case that two-dimensional items have a front and a back (although that, too, is problematic.. what would you call a flat triangle?) but anything that is three-dimensional always has three dimensions. By definition, of course. It has a height, a width and a depth. And you can always turn and twist it in those three dimensions - hence, it has at *LEAST* three sides.

 

Of course, I can also rotate something half-way; so if I have a playing dice, for example, I can look at either side (1,2,3,4,5,6) but I can also look at a corner-head on, and see two sides at once (1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc) and I can also look at a quarter corner, and see partial of three sides.

 

Try it, you'll see.

 

Who's to say which are the front and back? Isn't it obvious that there are more than two sides? and an infinite option of rotation?

 

Okaayyyy. Now we've sorted that one.

Anyone bold enough to prove my theory wrong; or you guys all suffering from NPD.

Another suggestion I will make to you is this: If you want to do science - real science, and change the world while you're at it - you *have* to keep an open mind. You're asking us to do the same, after all. If you suggest a theory, the first thing you should do is take a step back and act as your own devil's advocate: where are the weak points of your own theory? what can people try to do to disprove it? If you can't think of anything that will disprove your theory, it isn't science.

 

All scientific theories are falsifiable. They have to be. There must be a condition that - if found to be true - renders the theory bunk.

 

But overall, you have to try and make sure your reasoning follows through consistently. In your case, you simplify definitions into a two-dimensional perspective and try to stick them onto a three-dimensional world.

 

~moo