THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES, THE UNIVERSAL LOGIC

THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES, THE UNIVERSAL LOGIC

I THE CONCEPT OF COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES

The concept of the coincidence of opposites refers, at first glance, to situations where aprioric oppositions are both simultaneously true. Thus, when a person runs around an athletic track, as he moves away from his starting point, he moves towards it and, as he moves toward it, he moves away.

This logic is opposed to the principle of non-contradiction, according to which “A” cannot be “non-A” simultaneously: thus, a young woman cannot, a priori, be blond and brown (– “not-blond” -) at the same time. In fact, the principle of non-contradiction is only relative – that is, true up to a certain point – when the theory of coincidence of opposites is always true.

2 – METHODOLOGY

The method to understand the secrets of sciences consists of making some kind of proposal - for example, “I doubt everything” - then in dualising the proposal by adding its opposite(s) – “I do not doubt everything” – and in interpreting the emerging meaning of the new formula in a holistic or global way: the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

In the present case, the formula “I doubt everything” implies the formula “I don’t doubt everything”, because, when I say that I doubt everything, I simultaneously say that I don’t doubt that I doubt: we can recognize the formalization of the overcoming of Cartesian doubt.

Furthermore, the meaning of the new created formula will normally change (- except for the factual coincidences) according to the order of the associated sentences. Thus, the formula “When I doubt everything, I don’t doubt everything” hasn’t the same sense as the formula “when I don’t doubt everything, I doubt everything”, which means that the discovery or the progression towards the truth implies a preliminary doubt on its prejudices of departure and its sensitive impressions.

We’re going to understand through a series of examples and explanations that TCO really is the logical code of the universe.

3 – THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES IN PURE LOGIC

A – EXAMPLES

- “If I don’t know anything, I know something”

=? If I don’t know anything, I know at least something (that I know anything), this is a formalization of the Socrates’ formula “ The only thing I know is that I know nothing”.

- “Though a barber shaves all those who don’t shave themselves, he doesn’t shave all those who don’t shave themselves”

=? The paradox of the barber by Bertrand Russel takes the form of a question :”When a barber says he shaves all those who don’t shave themselves, does he shave himself?”. Yet, according to the formula, if he shaves himself, he doesn’t shave himself and if he doesn’t shave himself, he shaves himself. The barber can indeed shave all those who don’t shave themselves...except him, he cannot include himself in this proposal, which the coincidence of opposites will render perfectly.

- “If there is nothing in the world that is certain, there is something in the world that is certain”

=? When someone affirms that nothing in the world is certain, he affirms that there is at least one thing that is certain, the phrase itself.

- “If everything is only a question of point of view, everything is not only a question of point of view”

To affirm that ??everything is only a question of point of view?? implies that we recognize the existence of a superior point of view, i.e a truth. We can here remark that the theory of coincidence of opposites has nothing to do with relativism, it is, on the contrary, a technical to discover the truth.

-“If everything is true, everything is not true”

=? When I say that everything is true, I implicitly exclude from "everything" certain contrary propositions such as "everything is false" or "everything is not true", which therefore necessarily implies that "everything is not true".

-“If everything is true, everything is false”

=?Indeed, "if everything is true", there is no longer a proposition that is superior to another one, so the notion of truth no longer exists since truth can only exist in contrast with error, thus "everything is false", a formula that is the very definition of the absence of truth.

“If philosophy is an inquiry without prejudice, it is not an inquiry without prejudice.

=?To conduct an inquiry without prejudice is already a prejudice as Nietzsche said.

“When I am refusing to judge, I am accepting to judge”

=?When I don’t judge, I am still judging.

B - THE PROBLEM OF FOUNDATION OF LOGIC – THE G?DEL PARADOX

In the 1930’s, Kurt G?del demonstrated that mathematical proposals can be both true and undemonstrable in mathematics system: it is impossible to demonstrate the coherence of all mathematics by using mathematics: there are intuitive truths that the system itself does not allow to discover.

Thus, consider a machine that responds “True” or “False” to an affirmation that you give it, without ever being mistaken. Now, if we give the sentence “The machine will never answer true to this sentence”, what happens?

- But if the machine answers “True”, it says that “The machine will never answer “True” to this sentence” is a true statement. However, the machine just answered “True” to the sentence. If the machine is never wrong, then it cannot answer “True”.

- If it answers “False”, it means that “The machine will never answer True to this sentence” is a false statement or “The machine will always answer true to this sentence”… when the machine just answered “false”, or “The machine will sometimes answer True to this sentence”, which implies that “The machine will sometimes answer False”: however, how could the machine answer the same sentence sometimes true and, therefore, sometimes false, while remaining coherent? If the machine is never wrong, then it cannot answer “false”.

Yet, if the machine cannot discover the truth, a human being can answer the question: we indeed know that the sentence “The machine will never answer true to this sentence” is true.

“If mathematics are demonstrable, they are not demonstrable", which means that any demonstration supposes a part of intuition.

Similarly, “if everything is logical, everything is not logical”: how could I indeed logically prove that everything is logical?

We will yet find this “illogical-logic” in the theory of coincidences of opposites itself: “if the theory of coincidences of opposites is true, it is false”.

=? Indeed, one the one hand, the theory needs a good interpretation of human’s mind, but, furthermore, it doesn’t fully abolish the non-contradictory logic which stays relatively true. We’ll understand, in our chapter about the resolution of the time issue why the factual proposal “this young girl is blond” is only relatively true.

4 – THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES IN PHYSICS

- THE WAVE/CORPUSCLE DUALITY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

In the infinitely small, a quantum particle – whether of matter or light - takes on contradictory aspects depending on the experiment performed. It is both wave and corpuscle, whereas classical physicists thought of these concepts as irreconcilable opposites : “If the particle is a corpuscle, it is a wave”.

Even though this theory would only apply in the infinitely small, we’ll show that it well applies at our scale without us being aware of it for the moment.

- IN THE EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY THEORIES

1 - “When Pierre gets closer to Vincent, Vincent gets closer to Pierre”, “When Pierre is immobile, he is mobile”, “When a train runs on rails, rails run under a train”.

=? In Einstein’s theories, all motion is relative to a given reference frame. Thus, two moving objects moving parallel at the same speed are said to be stationary relative to each other. It follows that a being on Earth, according to Einstein's theories, perceived as immobile, moves with the planet Earth, it is therefore mobile. For this reason, when Peter moves towards Vincent, it is equivalent to say that it is Vincent who moves and Peter who remains motionless.

2 - "The faster an object goes, the slower it goes"

=? In the theory, when the speed of an object increases, it takes more and more force to achieve the same acceleration and infinite force to reach the speed of light.

=? This theory is considered universal even though it would only produce noticeable effects at very high speeds. However, for us, without going into details, it does have perceptible effects at our scale since, according to the theory itself, "when a source of light reaches my eyes, my eyes reach a source of light", which implies that, in a relative sense, I do move at the speed of light, without being aware of it. Thus, when I move, I do perceive a deformation of the surrounding objects, i.e. a deformation of space as predicted by the theory.

I can also notice that when I increase the speed of a vehicle, I consume proportionally more energy, which is again a "relativistic effect". In the same way, a student or an economy which progresses, knows this phenomenon of decrease of the marginal efficiency of the effort: a student whose average note passes from 5 to 10/20 improves his results of 100 % whereas a student who passes from 13 to 18/20 improves it only of 38 %. The relativistic effect seems to be universal: "The more I progress, the less I progress", "The more antibiotics I take, the less I take".

- THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION IN THE EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCES

It is logically impossible to demonstrate absolutely a universal law - a relationship between two phenomena that is true at all times and in all places - from one's own observations, even if they are extremely numerous. Thus, Popper wrote: "No matter how many white swans I have seen, it does not mean that all swans are white". Thus, the theory of so-called universal gravitation cannot ABSOLUTELY demonstrate that Christ could not walk on water. It follows that "if the sciences are absolutely demonstrable, they are not absolutely demonstrable".

5 THE THEORY OF COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES AND MORALITY

The theory first expresses the existence of a truth in moral matters:

- "If there is no truth in morality, there is one": the relativistic idea or the idea of the absence of transcendent truth in moral matters, necessarily leads to the affirmation of other morals. Thus, metaphorically speaking, when a farmer does not cultivate his field...he grows weeds.

- If everyone does what he likes, no one does what he likes": we find the idea that, without a transcendent morality, collective life turns into an anarchy, a chaos that ultimately benefits no one as "the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, if he does not transform his strength into right and obedience into duty" (Rousseau)

It also expresses the intuitive and qualitative character - and thus non-systematic - of our moral conscience: thus, morality cannot be reduced to ready-made maxims that would be applied in a mechanical way, without reflection. To give an example, it is moral - to protect the innocent - to lie to the Gestapo. In the same way, the soldier who kills a terrorist who is about to shoot at a crowd is acting in accordance with morality. We find this idea in the coincidence of opposites: "When I lie, I do not lie", "When I kill, I do not kill" and, conversely, "When I do not lie, I lie", "When I do not kill, I kill".

6 THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Since no theory can ABSOLUTELY demonstrate its universality - which does not mean, on the other hand, that the truth does not exist, since "if no theory can prove that it is true, a theory can prove that it is true" - it should be noted that this logic is found in Christianity: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end", "I am he who was, who is and who will be", said Christ. In the same way, the notion of Trinity will be found in the formula: "If the Son is not the Father, he is the Father".

7 – RESOLUTION OF THE TIME ISSUE AND QUANTUM THEORY INTERPRETATION

Today, most scientists think that the universe has an age, that it is inscribed in time. However, it can be demonstrated that the Universe is eternal, via a purely contradictory logic.

Our current conception is based on the idea the past is a reality that definitely no longer exists, that the present is a reality that exists and that the future is a potential reality that therefore does not yet exists.

However, this conception clashes with the problem of infinite regression and with the issue of ultimate origin of universe: if the universe began with the Big-Bang, what was there before the Big-Bang? If there were nothing, how could nothing produce something? If there were God, what would be God’s origin? And if we invoke the eternity of God, why would God have decided to create something 15 billion years ago? What was he doing before? If we resolve to think that God is therefore not eternal, we come back to the initial question.

In fact, the notion of eternity – which allow for resolving the problem of the ultimate origin of the universe – is logically opposed to the existence of time at the scale of the universe. An eternal world is neither beginning nor end or, furthermore, a world in which the concepts of beginning, end and middle have no longer any absolute meaning and all coincide together.

Thus, from looking at a straight line, we can first conclude that every point on the line is both a center or a non-center, but it can also be said that the notions of center, beginning or end of the line are meaningless and that, in the end, the line can be seen as an infinite number of points that follow one another or as a single point which brings together the notions of beginning, middle and end, such as the concept of eternity brings together the past, present and future.

This implies that all the events that constitute the Universe take place at the same time in an infinity of "semi-parallel" realities or, as Parmenides already said, "Everything that exists has always existed".

Thus, if I am in a Ferris wheel basket, there is someone in front of me and behind me. But from the point of view of the organizer on the ground, for whom I am just a client among others, there is no basket in front or behind others. If you ask the question, "When does the basket pass in front of building X?" the organizer will answer, "All the time. There is always a basket in front of the building," and the client will answer "Every minute," that’s the time it takes for the Ferris wheel to go around.

It follows that "shadows of myself" - of which I am myself a shadow - are experiencing all the realities that make up my existence. We must distinguish between the "me in his frame of reference", which is enclosed in its reality - it no longer lives in the past and does not yet live in the future -, and the infinite number of "I", which are witnessing, at this moment, all the events that constitute my existence: I am here and elsewhere.

=? If time exists - relative truth -, it does not exist - universal truth.

=? If no event exists simultaneously - we find Einstein's theory according to which the constancy of the speed of light makes an event appear non-simultaneously for two observers located at different distances from the event in question -, all events exist simultaneously: all events in History take place at the same time on the scale of the Universe.

=? If the Universe has an origin, it has no origin: it is eternal. Its ultimate origin is to have no origin, but to be "laid down", "there", infinitely present.

=? The theory of eternal return: if the world is eternal, it is not; if the world has an end, it has no end. Thus, the Universe is finite and infinite at the same time, like an athletics track: at the end of the world, the world begins again. From an individual point of view - and from the point of view of my frame of reference - my past is also my future: if my past is behind me, it is ahead of me.

=? The "present" existence of past and future in "semi-parallel" realities is found via the formulas: if the past no longer exists, it still exists; if the future does not yet exist, it already exists.

=? Demonstration of a sense of History on a cycle scale: if the Universe has a sense, it has no sense. As Hegel thought, human history converges to a perfect or near-perfect world - it makes sense in its internal logic - but is also absurd in another sense since our past is also our future.

=? It follows that the world of the infinitely small actually reflects the reality of the infinitely large. Between the two, we have the notion of referential, in which objects will appear as "bodies": if the infinitely large is opposed to the infinitely small, it is not opposed to it. Indeed, as I carry out my "past" and my "future" in an infinity of simultaneous "semi-parallel" realities, it follows that, at the scale of my reference frame, I am indeed a body and that, at the scale of the Universe, I am indeed a probability wave.

The interest of such a logic is to allow for verifing our demonstrations in any field of science.