/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15583912
this.

furthermore, I would argue that two is a more fundamental real world concept than one, for one and one don't make up two, as no two things are truly identical. two thus does not mean "two things" but rather "a thing and another thing, complementary to it". a lot of concepts are dual in nature: being and non-being, spiritual and corporeal, male and female, etc., but none of them mean "take the same thing twice" or even "create the second thing by transforming the first". these dualities can not be meaningfully split in separate let alone equal pieces (meaningful for the physical world that is), thus confirming the fundamental nature of duality. if we try split the most fundamental duality, that of existence and non-existence anyways, we arrive at the realization that every object has "God" in it (something infinite and unchanging, infinite existence), or that "God" is all things (infinite potential, infinite non-existence).

Eg:
>I have 2 apples!
it's actually an apple and another apple, not identical to the first one.
>I have 1 apple!
in reality it's a duality of an existence of an apple and non-existence of an apple. taken on their own, neither of these two parts of a duality make physical sense (if it exists without not-existing then the apple is "God", if it non-exists without existing then it's not an apple – it can be literally anything at all.)

>>12310575
Benevolent dictatorship of immortal mind uploaded Elon Musk.