The

Number

and its
Symbols

1.1 The nature of infinity
The reason why I write this essay is my wish to find the ultimate cause in nature, the primordial
archetype from which all other derive. But the cause has no form or shape and it cannot be found
in space and time. Its only context is human meaning and its forms are only be drawn by human
hands. But there is no meaning in nature if there is no human meaning; otherwise humans would
be outside and against nature. This offers us the only chance we have to explore, on its own
image, the true nature of the majestic archetype.

1.2 Cantor’s infinite sets
The archetype has no specific form or shape but it can be conceived by ratios and analogies. A
bow and an arrow for example can be regarded as symbols which form the shape of a circle: the
arrow represents the radius and the bow represents an arc of the perimeter. The circle itself is
infinite because the length or the area included can only be calculated by using the infinite
number π (containing an infinite number of decimals). Therefore despite the fact that the circle is
there, lying in front of us, there is no finite way to describe it. We can only express the notion by
using some ratios between the radius, the perimeter, the area and so on. This is because of the
nature of the number π. We can only find two fractions (as Archimedes did) within which the
number can be no smaller or bigger. Therefore we may say that π is a measure or a number
representing the archetype of curvature.
The infinite is neither endless nor miniscule. The radius of a circle can be of any size. But even if
somehow we stretch the perimeter of the circle to form a straight line we will need a ruler with
an infinite number of decimals to measure the exact length of this line. Therefore infinity is
hidden in all shapes and in every scale. A journey can be endless travelling either to the other
side of the universe or to the other end of our room. The shape is bounded but the steps we have
to make to describe it with absolute precision are infinite.
Cantor was perhaps the first mathematician who showed that there are different infinite sets. In
one of his earliest papers, Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is more numerous than the

set of natural numbers. This showed, for the first time, that there exist infinite sets of different
sizes. He was also the first to appreciate the importance of one-to-one correspondences in set
theory. He used this concept to define finite and infinite sets, subdividing the latter into countable
and uncountable.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor]

1.3 Zeno’s paradox
A classical paradox of infinity is Zeno’s paradox which also implicates the impossibility of
motion. In all versions the paradox divides a distance in an infinite number of intermediate steps.
Achilles chases the turtle and has to catch up with it. Will he ever catch up with the turtle?
According to Zeno the answer is no because it would take Achilles an infinite number of
intermediate steps. Zeno divides the in between distance in halves: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +… and
supposes that the sum of the progress is infinite. Archimedes however proved that this sum is
exactly equal to 1. Therefore the whole distance can be covered. But again the paradox persists
because the series is infinite. The number is fixed (the unit) but the number of steps we need to
describe the unit is infinite.

1.4 Berkley’s departed quantities
Zeno’s paradox of the arrow came down to modern science in the form of calculus. In order to
calculate motion we use the notion of instantaneous velocity. The symbol is dx/dt, where x the
position and t the time. The velocity v=dx/dt is the approximation of lim(Δx/Δt) as the limit goes
to zero, lim→0. The full expression (which is the definition of the derivative) goes as follows,
v=dx/dt=limΔt→0 (Δx/Δt). The problem with this definition is obvious because it implies division
by zero (Δt→0). However the calculation is performed in such a way that the division by zero
never occurs. The intermediate steps (average velocities near a certain position and time) are
infinite but the final result (instantaneous velocity at the certain position and time) is finite.
This approximation by infinitesimals of space (dx) and time (dt) was disputed by George Berkley
in his ‘Analyst:’

It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that (Newton) used Fluxions, like the Scaffold of a building,
as things to be laid aside or got rid of, as soon as finite Lines were found proportional to them.
But then these finite Exponents are found by the help of Fluxions. Whatever therefore is got by
such Exponents and Proportions is to be ascribed to Fluxions: which must therefore be
previously understood. And what are these Fluxions? The Velocities of evanescent Increments?
And what are these same evanescent Increments? They are neither finite Quantities nor
Quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them the Ghosts of departed
Quantities?”
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst]
These ‘Ghosts of departed Quantities,’ which Berkley refers to, or ‘Fluxions,’ are the
infinitesimals of modern calculus introduced by Leibnitz and Newton. Instead of dividing a
distance in infinite halves and then adding them together to find the sum, we divide the distance
in an infinite number of infinitesimal distances (dx) and then we integrate over the whole
distance to find the length. The magical thing here is that even if motion is impossible we are
able to move. Logical impossibility and Natural ability are two different things. It is the same as
birds. The talent to fly does not presuppose the knowledge of flying. How is this possible? It is
because the numbers are infinite but there is no finite expression to express it in words. Thus the
impossibility.

1.5 Gödel’s incompleteness theorem
Suppose you build a computing machine, and you give the order: “You will never say if this
sentence is true.” If the sentence is true, then the machine should say that the sentence is false. If
it is false, the machine cannot tell the truth that the sentence is false. So we will never know the
correct answer. This is a problem Gödel introduced, showing that logic is not immune to
inconsistencies. Logic is not a ‘perfect machine of truth.’ Gödel even quantified his theorem,
which simply says that for each theory Τ there is a sentence G which states that “G cannot be
answered by theory Τ.” If G could be proved by the axioms of Τ, then Τ would have a theorem

G, which is contradictory, so Τ would be inconsistent. But if Τ is consistent, then G cannot be
proved by T, thus T is incomplete.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems]
Gödel’s theorem came as a blow to the belief that all propositions of mathematics can be
proved. Solomon Feferman notes, “…it’s said that Gödel’s theorem tells us there are
mathematical truths that can never be proved.” Feferman also notes that, “Among those
who know what the incompleteness theorems actually do tell us, there are some
interesting views about their wider significance for both mind and matter. In his 1960
Gibbs Lecture, Gödel himself drew the conclusion that either mind infinitely surpasses
any finite machine or there is an absolutely unsolvable number of theoretic problems.
I believe that the previous statement is the key to Gödel’s theorem. Whether we regard logic
inconsistent or incomplete the fundamental aspect lies in its infinite nature. In other words the
problem is that when the number is infinite by nature we need an infinite number of properties or
axioms to describe the number (also the occurring natural phenomenon). Infinity is a property of
thought, therefore of logic. There is an infinite number of possible thoughts we can produce and
there’s an infinite number of phenomena which may occur and which may be related to the
corresponding thought. The incompleteness is found not in the incompetence but in the
indeterminism of the mind. The inconsistency is not based on lies but takes place because each
truth needs an infinite number of steps to describe it.
What I believe is the fundamental aspect of Gödel’s theorem is the property of selfreference; a sentence whose truth relies on the existence of the sentence itself. This is
exactly what would happen in the case of the aforementioned computer- it would face a
program with an infinite loop.
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/168411043/The-Origins-of-Thought]
A grammatical sentence or a logical proposition are analogous to a mathematical set. The
symbols are different, words vs. logical symbols vs. numbers but the operation is infinite. The
string or set we use is an approximation to describe a notion which in order to be described in

full length it would need an infinite number of steps. Take for example the sentence, ‘This is a
wave.’ The sentence is finite but it describes something infinite. But the sentence reverberates in
the same way a wave regenerates. Again we should recall the nature of the unit. It may take a
definite shape (that of a wave) but it remains infinite by nature (like all waves are) and it always
reproduces itself (like all profs do). This is how a logical set works; as a self- referring unit.

1.6 The Infinity of infinities

A: ‘How did the universe begin?’ A syllogism begins without a
beginning or an end (an infinite causal chain).
B: ‘The universe has always existed.’ A spontaneous reply that explains
the origins of the previous question but defies demonstration (an infinite
non- causal loop)
C: ‘The origin of the universe is acausal but the universe consists of
causal events.’ A thought unifying A and B.
D: ‘What is there outside the universe?’ The acausal loop breaks into an
infinite number of infinite causal chains. Birth of a new syllogism that
assumes the existence of a ‘multiverse.’
E: ‘What existed before the multiverse?’ Each infinite chain ‘bends’ to
find its origins. Many multiverses of spontaneous origin.
F: “What lies outside the set of all sets of multiverses?” The process

goes on for ever…

This is what we call an infinite regress. If P0 is our first proposition then it is true if P1 is
true, and P1 is true if P2 is true, and so on:

P0: ‘Logic is true.’
If P0 is true then…
P0 → P1 (if P1 true…)
P1 → P2 (if P2 true…)
P2 → P3 (if P3 true…)
Pn → Pn+1 …

If the first proposition P0 stands for ‘truth’ (like the sentence ‘logic is true’), then we will
never end up with a contradiction nor with an affirmation.
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/38784352/Reduction-to-Infinity]
Non- causal infinite loops are ‘logical circles’ which can help us get rid of infinite regress
in logic. However they imply spontaneous birth as they come and go from nowhere to
nowhere outside space and time. Is the archetype transcendental and metaphysical by
nature, this archetypal expression of cosmic birth and death? I believe that the true
problem as with Cantor’s infinite sets lies not in the multitude of numbers or logical steps
but in the nature of the number itself. A unit after all is bounded by form and infinite by
measure.

2.1 Impossible objects
It’s an important conclusion that the archetype has no real shape although we give it one. It is the
same as the number. ‘1’ for example is a symbol we use to write down the specific unit but it has
nothing to do with the nature of the unit. The circle again is a symbol of repetition, death and
rebirth, similar to the number zero. But this is not nothingness. Let’s say that ∞0 = 1, regarding
the infinite as another number. If we take a unitary circle (with a radius equal to 1), then its area
is just π while its perimeter is 2π. At the same time these numbers are phases of waves. Any
shape of a geometrical representation collapses for the shake of pure mathematics and of a
corresponding physical meaning.
As Aristotle put it, “Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises,
there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable.
Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premises. The first school,
assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite
regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know
the posterior through the prior… The other party agrees with them as regards knowing, holding
that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are
demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal. Our own
doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate
premises is independent of demonstration. Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we
maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to
recognize the definitions.”
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress]
The previous statement beautifully summarizes the nature of human thought. One the one hand,
there is reasoning, which leads us to the knowledge of the world by demonstration. On the other
hand, there are truths on which our whole reasoning is based, truths that have to do not only with
the physiological properties of our brain but also with the fundamental way the process of
thought evolves. In other words, inconsistency or impossibility is not necessarily a fault of our
weak minds but instead a reality which our minds are powerful enough to conceive and utilize.

As an object we may define anything that can be perceived or conceived to have form or/and
context. In this sense, objects include mountains, lakes, clouds, thoughts, feelings, logical
problems, notions, properties, everything. An object doesn’t need to be composite or welldefined. Intelligent living objects could be us, for example.

Impossible triangle sculpture as an optical illusion, East Perth, Western Australia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle]
The previous picture depicts Roger Penrose’s triangle, which is an impossible object. The object
in both three pictures is exactly the same although seen from different angles. What the brain
does is to try to perceive the object in its totality. This is why we seem to be tricked by this
optical illusion.

2.2 Escher and non-Euclidian geometries

‘Waterfall’
A painter who expanded the perspective of impossible objects is M.C. Escher. His waterfall,
depicted in the previous image, is an example of an impossible machine which carries water
from the bottom to the top without any mechanical work. However the work is already done in
this painting by the painter.

Escher pre-occupied himself with non-Euclidean geometry, as depicted in the previous figures.
Tessellation is a procedure by which the plain is divided by objects which can fill it up. Escher
did this using geometrical properties and creatures which repeat themselves in reducing scale
until they fill up the plane or a circle.

Roger Penrose used tessellation in a more mathematical way than Escher. His first tiling (on the
left) uses pentagons and three other shapes: a five-pointed ‘star’ (a pentagram), a ‘boat’ (roughly
3/5 of a star) and a ‘diamond’ (a thin rhombus). To ensure that all tilings are non-periodic, there

are matching rules that specify how tiles may meet each other, and there are three different types
of matching rule for the pentagonal tiles. It is common to indicate the three different types of
pentagonal tiles using three different colors, as in the figure (on the left).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling]
The reduced tiling method uses just two different shapes, like those on the right picture. It is
based on ‘kites’ and ‘darts.’
[http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags/PenroseQuilt.html]
It is obvious that this tiling is aperiodic otherwise we could fill the plane just with hexagons or
even simpler with squares. Penrose’s technique showed that we need at least two different shapes
for an aperiodic tilling. But still I guess we might use an infinite number of shapes moving from
a point outwards towards infinity or inwards towards the center. Escher used a handful of
creatures to fill its paintings. But there’s nothing metaphysical about the quantity. The gaps can
be equally important. In other words the number can take the shape of a regular unit or it can be
implied by different types of zero.

2.3 Bach’s recurring melody

This is another of Escher’s lithographs. It is called ‘Drawing hands.’ It is the painter who paints
the hands of the painter. It also the audience who observes what is being observed. Douglas
Hofstadter in his book ‘I Am a Strange Loop’ defined what he called a strange loop:
“And yet when I say ‘strange loop,’ I have something else in mind- a less concrete, more elusive
notion. What I mean is not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages
that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to
another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive
‘upward’ shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one’s sense of departing
ever further from one’s origin, one winds up, to one’s shock, exactly where one had started out.
In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.”
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop]
Hofstadter also wrote ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach,’ in which he further explores the notion of selfreference. I would say that the essence of infinite loops is spontaneity or simultaneity. Any
paradox or logical regression is produced afterwards by the effort of the mind to understand in a
meaningful way what had already happened spontaneously. However spontaneity is also a
property of the mind (what we call inspiration).
Hofstadter also uses a dialog between Zeno’s ‘Achilles and the tortoise’ which he calls the ‘Little
harmonic labyrinth.’ Now the latter name refers to a Bach’s fugue (Kleines harmonisches
Labyrinth in German). Bach’s authorship of the piece has been doubted but Bach’s music and
fugues in general exhibit the recursive pattern which can also be found in logic or in Escher’s
paintings. A more representative piece of Bach’s recursive (and undisputable) genius is I believe
‘Concerto for Oboe and Violin in C minor, II. Adagio’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA1YY-tfUo). An oboe and a violin follow one another in a movement of music which goes up
and down like a snake. The succession of the two instruments reminds me of Escher’s ‘Drawing
hands’ or of Penrose’s tilling by using just two different shapes.
A fugue is characterized as contrapuntal which means that the music is composed of different
instruments (harmonics) which follow their own pattern of rhythm (times). The term originates

from the Latin ‘punctus contra punctum’ which means ‘tone after tone.’ The acoustical waves
which the organs produce come together and leave each other in unison. In fact the harmonics
which are found in any wave packet and which in this case produce the uniqueness of the
musical piece are of the same nature as the harmonics of our vocal chords which produce the
uniqueness of the pitch of our voice. Again here Bach’s ‘acoustical illusion’ is produced in the
same way as Escher’s or Penrose’s optical illusions because within the music scale, as in any set
of numbers or in the spectrum of colors, the subdivision between two successive notes is infinite.
Infinite is also the multitude of harmonics.

2.4 Fractal structures

Take a sea shell on a beach as an example. The Fibonacci numbers on its spiral as well as the
echo of emptiness when we put the shell on our ears, all produce an expression and a sense of
infinity. The clue here is that infinity is not found outside the shell but within it. It is found on the
spirals and inside the hollow area. The infinity of space-time cannot exist without space-time.
This applies also to logic. Infinity is a notion that is produced within the microtubules of our
brain and which we try to grasp with rules which are found within our system of thought.
Not only a shell but also the sea-shore, the grains of sand, the peaks of waves or of mountains,
the snow- flakes or the leaves and branches of trees, or the spots on peacocks have fractal
structures. The characteristic of a fractal is that it exhibits the same pattern at any scale, as
illustrated in the above pictures of a fractal of the Mandelbrot set. In these pictures we can see
the similarity or homomorphism (correspondence) between fractal structures and observable
things, like neurons and galaxies. We will discuss holography and the holographic principle later
on. The point here is that nature reproduces itself in a highly organized and repetitive way,

according to the principle of least action: of all possible ways nature prefers the most efficient
one (in the case of fractals by repeating itself conserving this way energy).
Mathematical music and fractals was one of the pre-occupations of Iannis Xenakis. He wrote
algorithmic music which may be performed by computers. Here follows an excerpt from his
book ‘Perspectives of new music:’
“When events or phenomena are synchronic, or rather, if all imaginable events were synchronic,
universal time would be abolished, for anteriority would disappear. By the same token, if events
were absolutely smooth, without beginning or end, and even without modifications or
‘perceptible’ internal roughness, time would likewise find itself abolished. It seems that the
notion of separation, of bypassing, of difference, of discontinuity, which are strongly interrelated,
are prerequisite to the notion of anteriority. In order for anteriority to exist, it is necessary to be
able to distinguish entities, which would then make it possible to ‘go’ from one to the other. A
smooth continuum abolishes time, or rather time, in a smooth continuum, is illegible,
inapproachable.
Continuum is thus a unique whole filling both space and time… Music participates both in space
outside time and in the temporal flux. Thus, the scales of pitch; the scales of the church modes;
the morphologies of higher levels; structures, fugal architectures, mathematical formulae
engendering sounds or pieces of music, these are outside time, whether on paper or in our
memory. The necessity to cling against the current of the river of time is so strong that certain
aspects of time are even hauled out of it, such as the durations which become commutable. One
could say that every temporal schema, pre-conceived or post-conceived, is a representation
outside time of the temporal flux in which the phenomena, the entities, are inscribed.”
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/100240317/Concerning-Time-Space-and-Music]

3.1 The music of the spheres

Kepler’s Platonic solid model of the solar system from his ‘Mysterium Cosmographicum’ (1596)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid]
The notion of ‘Universal music’ (Musica universalis) or ‘Harmony of the Spheres’ is an ancient
philosophical concept that regards proportions in the movements of celestial bodies as a form of
music. This ‘music’ is not usually thought to be literally audible, but a harmonic, mathematical
or religious concept. This ‘Music of the spheres’ incorporates the metaphysical principle that
mathematical relationships express qualities or ‘tones’ of energy which manifest in numbers,
visual angles, shapes and sounds- all connected within a pattern of proportion. Pythagoras first
identified that the pitch of a musical note is in proportion to the length of the string that produces
it, and that intervals between harmonious sound frequencies form simple numerical ratios. In a
theory known as the Harmony of the Spheres, Pythagoras proposed that the Sun, Moon and
planets all emit their own unique hum (orbital resonance) based on their orbital revolution, and
that the quality of life on Earth reflects the tenor of celestial sounds which are physically
imperceptible to the human ear. Subsequently, Plato described astronomy and music as ‘twinned’
studies of sensual recognition: astronomy for the eyes, music for the ears, and both requiring
knowledge of numerical proportions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis]

Kepler’s ‘Harmonices mundi’ (Harmony of the world) expresses such notions. An interesting
treatise on this book was written by Bruce Stephenson, ‘The music of the heavens, Kepler’s
harmonic astronomy.’ Stephenson says,
“The principal theses of the Harmonices mundi (which builds on Ptolemy’s Harmonics), were
that certain ratios, arising from the eternal geometry of regular polygons, were particularly noble;
that the influence of music on the human soul depended upon these ratios, as did the influence of
astrological aspects on mundane matters such as the weather and the human soul; and that these
same ratios had been systematically embodied in the creation of the solar system.
To understand the musical harmonies that Kepler discovered in the heavens one must know
something of music theory... The intervals recognized as harmonic are the octave, corresponding
to the proportion 1:2; the fifth, corresponding to 2:3; and the fourth, corresponding to 3:4, which
is the difference between the octave and the fifth. In the more recent system of just intonation,
major and minor thirds and sixths are accepted as consonances and assigned proportions that
please the ear. Kepler developed a geometric explanation for why there should be precisely seven
basic consonances, but it is clear that he accepts the thirds and sixths on grounds that are
empirical and aesthetic.
With pleasant-sounding thirds and sixths available, the system of just intonation supports
polyphonic music, music with multiple voices sounding simultaneously. Such music had become
popular in the sixteenth century, and Kepler hails it as a fundamental improvement over the
music of antiquity. (He believes that the harmony of the Pythagoreans, and of ancient Greece in
general, was essentially monophonic, arising from a single voice.) Kepler attributes the failure of
the theories Ptolemy advanced at the end of his Harmonics to the absence of polyphony in his
harmonies, no less than to the inadequacy of his geocentric astronomy.”
[https://arcaneknowledgeofthedeep.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/keplersharmonicheavens.pdf]

Stephenson also says that along with the five regular polyhedra (cube, tetrahedron, octahedron,
dodecahedron and icosahedron) Kepler introduced a sixth, the ‘hedgehog’ (a pentagram), shown
in the previous figure, which is formed by extending the twelve pentagonal sides of the
dodecahedron into five-pointed stars, and fitted best between Mars and Venus. Here I remember
Penrose’s sets of prototiles, which he used to fill the Euclidian flat space. Any attempts to tile the
plane just with regular pentagons will necessarily leave gaps, but Johannes Kepler showed in
Harmonices Mundi that these gaps could be filled using pentagrams (viewed as star polygons),
decagons and related shapes. Acknowledging inspiration from Kepler, Penrose was able to find
matching rules for these shapes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling]
In general we may say that planetary motions as well as musical tones obey mathematical
proportions, analogies and ratios, but if two different things apply to the same rules, the two
things are not the same. If planets move in ratios similar to those found in music, this doesn’t
mean that planets play music. This shows the similar contradiction between astronomy and
astrology- the law of gravity does not imply ‘a psychic force’ imposed by the planets on the
human psyche. This is the key: In astrology the planets should be treated as symbols
corresponding to the constellations. We say for example that the constellation Libra is guided by
the planet Venus but equivalently we could say that Libra is guided by the planet number 2, or by
the bird Ibis, or that it is found in the house of the monkey, or whatever. If there is any effect at
all, this is caused by the symbol, not the mass of some physical object, not to mention that Libra

(♎) is a symbol too. Therefore it is the number (proportion) and its symbols (platonic solids,
musical notes, astrological symbols, words, and so on).
Kepler finally stated his 3rd famous ‘Harmonic’ law, that the ratio of the squares of the periods of
two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun. It was an
empirical deduction based on pure observation, not on any theory of regular polyhedra. Then it
was Newton who formulated a mathematical proof of planetary motions based on calculus and
his assumption of the gravitational force. Lastly Einstein viewed gravity as a pseudo- force,
explaining planetary orbits with space-time curvature. Therefore gravity has been proven to be a
ghost as much as astrological planetary influences, as much as space-time too. Behind any
natural phenomenon or physical object it is the number and its symbols what exerts the ‘forces’
and what truly influences us.

3.2 Jungian Archetypes

Mandala from Carl Jung’s collection
Mandala (Sanskrit for ‘circle’) is a spiritual and ritual symbol in Indian religions, representing
the universe. The basic form of most mandalas is a square with four gates containing a circle
with a center point. In common use, mandala has become a generic term for any diagram, chart

or geometric pattern that represents the cosmos metaphysically or symbolically; a microcosm of
the universe.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala]
The similarity of the previous figure with fractals is apparent. Jung believed that mandalas drawn
by his patients as they had visualized them in dreams helped his patients cure themselves. The
belief in the therapeutical property of expressing dreams is also common in Freudian
psychanalysis but Jung went a step further to suppose that dream contexts (therefore their
visualization with shapes) were universal. In other words the shapes that the dreams, or more
generally all psychic contexts, took were common to all cultures throughout the ages. Jung
identified these fundamental shapes with archetypes.
Jung also believed that the archetypes, although metaphysical by nature, can produce physical
phenomena, thus creating synchronistic phenomena, as he called them. A famous example is that
of the beetle. A patient of his was narrating to Jung a dream of hers in which she saw a beetle. At
that moment a real beetle appeared outside Jung’s window. After this event Jung confirms that
his patient showed enormous progress with her emotions, as the synchronistic phenomenon
helped her get rid of her strict deterministic views which she previously held. However the
phenomenon is really amazing on its own.
How may we explain what had really happened? Is there any real connection with Plato’s world
of ideas, according whom for every physical object there should exist another object in the
spiritual world? Plato’s idea led to a dead end because in the end there must have been spiritual
counterparts even for a chair or for a grain of sand, even for all notions and ideas. However the
symbolism does not disappear. What is important in Jung’s paradigm with the beetle is the
relationship between the two symbols: that which took the shape of a biological insect and that
which took the form of a dream context.
The chances that psychic and natural events can take the same form at the same time are good if
there is an underlying principle connecting them. In the case of gravity, the force is the
underlying cause which makes physical objects fall at the same time from the same height on the

ground. Their rate of fall is constant and this makes the phenomenon synchronous or
simultaneous. Jung explained synchronistic phenomena by supposing the existence of the
collective unconscious. It consists of archetypes which take the same form for all people. The
same forms must also be found in nature. Therefore the chances that two such forms (one
psychic and one physical) coincide increase dramatically.

3.3 Atoms and archetypes
Jung used to have correspondence with the physicist Wolfgang Pauli for a long time. In his
unpublished essay ‘Modern examples of background physics,’ Pauli says,
“What I understand by ‘background physics’ is the appearance of quantitative terms and concepts
from physics in spontaneous fantasies in a qualitative and figurative- i.e., symbolic- sense. I have
been familiar with the existence of this phenomenon for about 12 to 13 years from my own
personal dreams, which are totally uninfluenced by other people. As examples of physical terms
that can appear as symbols, I should like to list the following, without any claim to completeness:
wave, electrical dipole, thermoelectricity, magnetism, atom, electron, shells, atomic nucleus,
radioactivity.
As befits my rational, scientific approach, these dreams seemed to me initially offensive- in fact,
an abuse of scientific terminology. What is more, I regarded the appearance of this symbolism in
my dreams as a personal idiosyncrasy, typical of a physicist, and never even remotely hoped that
I would be able to communicate the special experience that manifests itself in dreams of this
nature to any psychologist of my acquaintance, for they are certainly not physicists.
Later, however, I came to recognize the objective nature of these dreams or fantasies- i.e., the
fact that they are largely independent of the actual person. What first struck me was the similarity
of the mood that obtains both in my dreams and in the physical treatises of the 17th century,
especially in Kepler, where scientific terms and concepts were still relatively undeveloped, and
physical considerations and ideas were interspersed with symbolic concepts. Second, I could see

certain correspondences between the contents of my dreams and the graphic concepts of
scientific laymen, especially those with a poor education and weak critical faculties, who are not
hampered by inhibitions on the part of consciousness that might otherwise affect the naiveté of
the fantasies. Thus it was that I gradually came to acknowledge that such fantasies or dreams are
neither meaningless nor purely arbitrary but rather convey a sort of ‘second meaning’ of the
terms applied. This seems to me today ample proof of the fact that the kind of imagination I call
‘background physics’ is of an archetypal nature. But any attempt to open it up to a psychological
interpretation, based on the idea of the collective unconscious, must not fall into the trap of
assuming that the products of background physics are directly comparable with the well
formulated doctrine of scientific truths. From the point of view of contemporary science, the
form of imagination under discussion is definitely to be seen as a relapse into an archaic stage.
Furthermore, my feeling is that the purely psychological interpretation only apprehends half the
matter. The other half is the revealing of the archetypal basis of the terms actually applied in
modern physics. What the final method of observation must see in the production of ‘background
physics’ through the unconscious of modern man is a directing of objective toward a future
description of nature that uniformly comprises physis and psyche, a form of description that at
the moment we are experiencing only in a prescientific phase. To achieve such a uniform
description of nature, it appears to be essential to have recourse to the archetypal background of
the scientific terms and concepts.
In the following outline, I shall attempt to explain how a physicist, as a consequence of this
approach, inevitably shifts from this background into the field of psychology. As I regard physics
and psychology as complementary types of examination, I am certain that there is an equally
valid way that must lead the psychologist ‘from behind’ (namely through investigating the
archetype) into the world of physics.”
[http://deoxy.org/wiki/Modern_Examples_of_Background_Physics]

Pauli then gives an example from spectroscopy. The D-line in the previous picture is that of the
sodium atom. The spectral lines are produced as the atoms absorb and reemit energy in the form
of photons with certain frequencies. The spectral lines are a sort of identity for each chemical
element. Double lines (doublets) are produced when two states of the atom are involved in a
single excitation, and are described by quantum mechanics. Isotope separation is similar
although in this case the lines correspond to the different masses of the nucleus (isotopes have
the same number of electrons but different number of neutrons).
Pauli wonders if the separation of the spectral lines is a physical or psychic event. What is the
role of observation and of consciousness in the whole procedure? Pauli gives the example of
astral projection- the experience which many people have of themselves being projected out of
the physical body, floating in space, above the physical body which they can observe as it is
lying down still. Pauli makes a hint that somehow the unconscious mind or psyche makes the
projection, and that this projection somehow returns in the form of a conscious event. Therefore
our natural body could be seen as the projection or incarnation on the physical level of the
ethereal or spiritual body which lives on the psychic level.
Pauli concludes that,
“In summary, we can interpret the material given as follows: The unconscious spontaneously
executes a projection of the one complementary pair of opposites onto the other, with the energy
level or the mass number on the one side symbolically corresponding to the level of
consciousness on the other.”

3.4 Quarks and the Trinity

Baryonic and mesonic octads

Quark and antiquark triplets
[http://ati.tuwien.ac.at/research_areas/nuclear_and_particle_physics/research/fundamental_intera
ctions/hadrons/EN/]
After the advent of the atomic theory all elementary particles were treated like points in space,
like bullets running very fast, and interacting with each other to form matter as we know it. At
this stage any reference to theories about Platonic solids, Pythagorean numbers, or ‘little spirits’
causing the effects would be deemed heretic and belonging to pseudoscience. However the

experiments showed that ‘particles’ behaved also like waves, thus the wave-particle duality
axiom. What seems more appropriate then is to treat these fundamental entities as things which
can either behave like particles or like waves but which are neither. They are just units which can
perform discretely (particles), interfere (waves), entangle, or come in sets (quarks).
In the previous pictures we see the octads of baryons and mesons. Protons and neutrons are
baryons both of which consist of a triplet of quarks. Up until now nobody has succeeded in
splitting a quark triplet and nobody knows if this is possible. It would be interesting to conclude
if the triangle of quarks is formed by three particles or if the ‘quarks’ are just concentrations of
energy on the three vertices of the triangle. In the latter case matter would not be some ‘point
particles’ but the entity of the ‘quark triangle’ as a whole.
Here comes the axiom of irreducible complexity. It has been systematically used against the
evolution theory. Michael Behe, the originator of the term, defines it as follows:
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well- matched, interacting
parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced
directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the
same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any
precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful
challenge to Darwinian evolution.”
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/118580808/Human-Evolution-The-process-of-humanization]
In fact logic is an irreducibly complex system. We need a handful of axioms for the system to
work. In the case of any natural phenomenon we need initial conditions to begin with. The Big
Bang presupposes an initial state of very low entropy so that the universe began to expand. We
may say nothing about what was happening before the Big Bang but again we need something to
talk about nothing.

3.5 Synchronicity vs Quantum entanglement
A synonym of irreducible complexity is indivisibility. Niels Bohr assumed the notion due to the
non- local nature of the wave-function which seems to collapse simultaneously everywhere in
space. This is specifically true in quantum entanglement. I just want to say concerning the
phenomenon that the simultaneous interaction does not involve any information transmission.
One may say that because of the principle of uncertainty with respect to the position of the
entangled pair (the system is actually prepared to be entangled, therefore at the moment the
system is produced we know exactly its position in space) its momentum is driven to infinity.
This is one of the reasons Pauli preferred to call the uncertainty principle, complementarity
principle.

Pauli together with Jung devised the previous picture to compare quantum mechanical and
synchronistic phenomena. This scheme assumes a quaternity. Synchronicity has the same
timeless aspect as quantum entanglement but instead of relating two physical objects it relates a
physical object and a psychic state. Again here is important to note that it is not the
consciousness of the subject what influences the physical event; instead both events happen
simultaneously because of the related archetype. Therefore it seems that the subject’s or
observer’s soul or mind forms part of a collective consciousness which stresses to infinity and
where the archetypes live.

4.1 Bohm and the implicate order

David Bohm deviced a theory to explain the non- local character (simultaneity) in quantum
mechanics. Part of his reasoning was that separation in space is an illusion. The previous picture
taken from his book ‘Wholeness and the implicate order’ can be described as follows: Let’s
suppose that we a have a tank filled with water and that two cameras take shots of a fish
swimming in the tank. Each camera monitors the fish at a different angle. If the two different
images of the fish were projected on two screens placed in another room, a spectator in that room
would imagine that there were two different fish swimming in the tank. Only if he saw the
original tank and the cameras would he realize the illusion.
A way to understand this paradox is to use Bohm’s notion of the implicate order. Processes in the
quantum level somehow come in unison to produce macroscopic events in such a way that the
outcome is predetermined. Here’s another example from Bohm’s book, described in his own
words:

‘‘A more striking example of implicate order can be demonstrated in the laboratory, with a
transparent container full of a very viscous fluid, such as treacle, and equipped with a mechanical
rotator that can ‘stir’ the fluid very slowly but very thoroughly. If an insoluble droplet of ink is
placed in the fluid and the stirring device is set in motion, the ink drop is gradually transformed

into a thread that extends over the whole fluid. The latter now appears to be distributed more or
less at ‘random’ so that it is seen as some shade of grey. But if the mechanical stirring device is
now turned in the opposite direction, the transformation is reversed, and the droplet of dye
suddenly appears, reconstituted.
When the dye was distributed in what appeared to be a random way, it nevertheless had some
kind of order which is different, for example, from that arising from another droplet originally
placed in a different position. But this order is enfolded or implicated in the ‘grey mass’ that is
visible in the fluid. Indeed, one could thus ‘enfold’ a whole picture. Different pictures would
look indistinguishable and yet have different implicate orders, which differences would be
revealed when they were explicated, as the stirring device was turned in a reverse direction…
Suppose, then, that after thus ‘enfolding’ a large number of droplets, we turn the stirring device
in a reverse direction, but so rapidly that the individual droplets are not resolved in perception.
Then we will see what appears to be a ‘solid’ object (e.g. a particle) moving continuously
through space. This form of a moving object appears in immediate perception primarily because
the eye is not sensitive to concentrations of dye lower than a certain minimum, so that one does
not directly see the ‘whole movement’ of the dye. Rather, such perception relevates a certain
aspect. That is to say, it makes this aspect stand out ‘in relief’ while the rest of the fluid is seen
only as a ‘grey background’ within which the related ‘object’ seems to be moving.’’
Here the ‘fish’ is the macroscopic outcome of events which took place on the quantum level.
Therefore the picture of a fish is an illusion caused by our inadequacy to see what’s going on in
the microcosm and to grasp all these processes at the same time. We should note here that
Bohm’s theory was non- local but also deterministic. He thought that probability distributions
were real and represented them using the assumption of a non- local quantum potential filling
instantaneously space and time. The infinite number in this case would be the value of the
potential and its symbol would be something like ‘V,’ a symbol commonly used for potentials.
This number is infinite not because the quantity is necessarily infinite but because its meaning
implies instantaneous action at a distance.

4.2 The holographic principle

Recording a hologram

The previous picture taken from Wikipedia summarizes the way to produce a hologram. The
beam splits in two and the beam which illuminates the object interferes with the other beam
before they both hit the photographic plate. The main aspect of holograms is that they retain their
form (the picture of the object) no matter how many times we cut the holographic film in pieces
(although each time the picture loses intensity). Fractals have this holographic aspect as they
seem to remember their form each time they duplicate themselves. The human brain also seems
to work holographically because it has the ability to remember how to perform complicated tasks
even after injuries (see for example Karl Pibram’s experiments). Therefore it seems that different
regions of the brain are stimulated simultaneously each time a task is to be performed.

Explanation: Is this picture worth a thousand words? According to the Holographic Principle, the
most information you can get from this image is about 3 x 1065 bits for a normal sized computer
monitor. The Holographic Principle, yet unproven, states that there is a maximum amount of
information content held by regions adjacent to any surface. Therefore, counter-intuitively, the
information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room but on the area of the
bounding walls… The term ‘holographic’ arises from a hologram analogy where three-dimension
images are created by projecting light though a flat screen. Beware, other people looking at the
above image may not claim to see 3 x 1065 bits- they might claim to see a teapot.
[http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071216.html]
The previous ‘teapot paradigm’ is analogous to Bohm’s fish. The holographic principle was
derived from quantum gravity as an explanation of the so- called black hole information paradox.
A black hole literally swallows everything passing through its event horizon. Since matter and
energy is information a black hole consumes information which is lost behind the event horizon.
But information is supposed to be conserved under any circumstance. So where did the lost
information go? In reality it was reemitted in the form of Hawking radiation. This radiation is
produced by the excitation of the event horizon. Gerard ‘t Hooft found out a way in which
incoming particles can modify the outgoing particles on the event horizon. The idea was made
more precise by Leonard Susskind who argued that the oscillation of the horizon of a black hole

is a complete description of both the in- falling and outgoing matter in the same way we recover
the information contained in a holographic plate by illuminating it and producing a hologram.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle]
What is important to note is that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of black holes is analogous to
the area, not the volume included in the event horizon and that this Bekenstein bound is true for
every object whether a black hole, a room, or the universe itself. As Brian Greene put it, “The
holographic principle envisions that all we experience may be fully and equivalently described as
the comings and goings that take place at a thin and remote locus. It says that if we could
understand the laws that govern physics on that distant surface, and the way phenomena there
link to experience here, we would grasp all there is to know about reality. ”
[http://physics.about.com/od/physicsetoh/g/holoprinciple.htm]
In quantum mechanics in order to describe the motion of an object it is not necessary to know all
intermediate steps the object took. Instead what we need to know is the path which minimizes
the energy according to the principle of least action. If a particle moves in two dimensions we
can bring it down to a point- dimension and measure its position at a certain time. If we have a
collection of particles in 3D space we can bring them down to a 2D space and measure their
properties. In a holographic universe we needn’t know about all the phenomena which take place
within the universe. It will suffice to know about the information gathered on the event horizon
about all the history of the universe. Under such an interpretation space and time become values
on a ‘sheet of paper’ and infinity lies all the way in between.

4.3 Noether’s theorem
Imagine a 4D object passing through our 3D world. Let’s say that this object has the form of a
‘hypersphere.’ No matter what its true shape is as it passes through our world it will leave the
traces of a 3D sphere. If these traces represent physical events we will see these events occurring
in different places at the same time. If the object was hyper- dimensional also in time (living in a
world with 2D time) we might perceive the events happening anywhere at any time but we
would regard them as random, unrelated one to the other. The key which would help us identify

the relations would be the perception of the hypersphere or in general the ‘hyper object’ as an
unknown form of some ratios and proportions, in other words as some form of symmetry.
Noether’s theorem is an amazing result which lets physicists get conserved quantities from
symmetries of the laws of nature. Time translation symmetry gives conservation of energy; space
translation symmetry gives conservation of momentum; rotation symmetry gives conservation of
angular momentum, and so on.
[http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html]

4.4 The principle of analogy
Noether’s theorem is the mathematical proof of a simple philosophical axiom: Our own chance
to understand the world (also to have the ability of understanding) is some form of analogy
between the world and us. If Gödel rigorously showed that an approach to infinity requires an
infinite set of axioms to begin with, Noether proved that there can always be a set of
transformations to lead us as we head from what is known to what is unknown. This is the
ultimate aspect of the principle of analogy which guaranties us that there will always be a
correspondence between nature and our brain, in other words that our brain is just part of nature
and it is not found somewhere else or ‘outside.’

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model]

A straightforward example of the principle is Bohr’s model of the atomic structure. The electrons
orbit in the atom around the nucleus as planets orbit around the sun. In fact the electric force is
an inverse square force just like gravity. However gravity is not quantized (photons come in
distinct wave packets while gravitons have not been discovered yet.) Bohr’s model worked well
for the hydrogen atom but not for atoms with many electrons. But the analogy between the atom
and the solar system was in the right path. The principle however may go much deeper. For
example the negative inverse square function (-1/x2) looks very similar to the sum 1/(1-k2) of a
simple geometric series with ratio k. While in this case k<1, both formulas give the same values
as they move to infinity. This is just an example to show the close relationship between motion
of planets and thought progression. The ratios are similar if not the same.
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/58327646/Principle-of-Analogy]

4.5 The anthropic principle
I have heard many people saying, “The universe is like this…;” “According to the laws of
nature;” “God is like this…;” “Mountains are high;” “The sky is blue;” and so on. Some
scientists have even gone so far to state that the constants of nature are such in order to make
sure the appearance of intelligent life in the universe. This is the anthropic principle. It is based
on the cosmological argument that procedures in the universe were such and according to such
laws that intelligent life would evolve one way or the other. Some others have paraphrased the
principle to mean that if we didn’t exist we wouldn’t know the difference, but the point is that
very few people realize that the principle is not a natural law but just a human assumption.
Because there is a huge difference between what nature is and what we think about nature.
This is the road of the principle of analogy. It covers the distance between two separate worlds.
The world of humans and the world by itself. Some have also argued that since the notion of a
‘world by itself’ is meaningless the point is what we observe as the world. But hadn’t the
mountains or the moon existed before humans appeared? Apparently yes but the question of their
existence would have been pointless before someone made it.

I believe that we have stuck at this point because we are unable to make the distinction or better
to realize the relationship between the human mind and intelligence in general. The information
of the presence of mountains and the moon would have already existed before the appearance of
humans on the planet. But is information intelligent? The answer is that information is as much
intelligent as the mind of the creatures built upon it. In other words, and again within the context
of the principle of analogy, all material objects were built according to the same natural laws
which also made human beings. Therefore the matter of the human brain is no more intelligent
that any conglomeration of particles in the universe, although perhaps more complex than, let’s
say, a colony of bacteria. But let’s not forget that the first human cells evolved from bacteria.
So what is the fundamental difference regarding intelligence between the bacteria which made
the first cells, the cells which came together to form a living creature, and some creature which
has evolved to become an intelligent being? The degree of complexity measured in units of
entropy? The value of some probability function which in the case of advanced intelligence
beings gives a high probability? Or an essential and almost metaphysical factor which some
people have named God and which can also be related to some special initial conditions?
I personally believe that intelligence in the universe appeared at the very beginning. Not just
intelligence but a spiritual property so strong and magical that was able to manifest itself
spontaneously out of nothing and keeps on surprising us every day with its abilities concerning
creativity, inspiration, predictability and the gathering of wisdom. This is not just how the
universe came to be but it is also the way our mind works. Therefore the anthropic principle
could be viewed as part of information theory, considering the ‘spiritual’ properties as
consequences of what information really is, they way it appears, advances, and regenerates.

4.6 The participatory principle

The Universe as a self-excited circuit
[http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf]
One of the arguments of the strong anthropic principle is that “observers are necessary to bring
the Universe into being.” Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum
mechanics, as John Wheeler has suggested, especially via his idea that information is the
fundamental reality, see it from bit, and his Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) which is an
interpretation of quantum mechanics associated with the ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene
Wigner.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle]
PAP is closely related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle because any time we try to observe a
quantum object we disturb it so that what we observe is always linked to this disturbance.
Heisenberg originally used such an example in a thought experiment: Trying to measure the
position of an electron with the light of a photon we disturb the position of the electron so that
the electron’s momentum increases, and the harder we try to measure the position the more the
momentum increases. Another example is double slit experiments in which light appears either
as wave or as particle depending on the choice made by the experimenter.

Such experiments, either thought or real experiments, point out the role of the observerexperimenter. We should remind that such experiments deal with the quantum realm while there
is no known method to generalize the conclusions from the microcosm to the macrocosm.
Quantum gravity may serve as the unifying theory in the future. Quantum entanglement is
another important phenomenon which could open to science the gates of the metaphysical.
Quantum teleportation is one of such aspects. Synchronicity could be another one. But the big
problem here is that in synchronicity the entangled pair is not two particles but a physical
phenomenon and an emotional state. However the fact remains that again we are dealing with
two systems or states, two objects one of which we may call a ‘beetle’ and another one we may
call a ‘soul.’
In old physics the observer was somewhat privileged because he could have a special position
with respect to the observation he made by being outside the observed phenomenon. This is
almost impossible in quantum mechanics. The observer’s physical presence together with the
material tools he uses are equally important variables as the observed things. The system could
as well just include an observer observing himself. I believe that drawing the conclusion that the
observer defines the final state of the observed system by the mere act of his observation is an
illusion. It would be better to assume that the system changes as much the observer changes. In
other words the whole process is mutual rather than one- sided. The universe does not exist
because we observe it but since we observe it then we must exist.

4.7 The extended present
One of the common misconceptions is the notion of a point-particle. If we approach physical
things as having some dimensionality, even the smallest ones, it would be easier to understand
phenomena such as quantum entanglement. It is a unit, a single macroscopic object consisting of
many microscopic parts, two of which we identify as the entangled pair of particles. This is
similar to Pauli’s duplication of the spectral lines or to the way holograms work. I would say that
simultaneity is one aspect of the unit archetype.

Another clue is that all events are truly past-like or future-like while always considered in the
present. This is a rather straightforward statement. We always bring forward events at present
time no matter when they took or will take place. Therefore what truly distinguishes the present
from the past or the future could be just a probability distribution with different intensities for
each event, the higher intensity being for a single event which we consider the ‘present.’
However the distribution, as a real wave-function, always collapses simultaneously everywhere
so that there isn’t any past or future outside.
Thus the notion of the extended present which I conceived independently from Edmund Husserl
and his notion about the ‘phenomenology of temporality.’ We may say that events take place in
two phases. The first phase takes place in the background, non- locally or ‘unconsciously,’ and it
is simultaneous. The second phase is causal and at this stage information propagates with the
speed of light. This would be how we have premonitions about events which will take place after
a while. This could also be the way quantum entanglement works.

A retrograde loop of two events A and B. Event B predisposes event A, so that A be the cause of
B. Causality seems to be temporarily violated, but in fact both events occur, in a sense,
simultaneously, so that there is no causal relation between them. It is the loop itself which
connects both events.

This is a scheme of an infinite non-causal loop. The loop is non-causal but the cause- and- effect
process runs retrospectively. The related phenomenon becomes ‘visible’ by the limitation of the
speed of light. But the disturbance is distributed in space and time much faster than light. Also
note that the process is fast enough that the ‘event’ B may seem to run backwards in time to
create its ‘cause’ A. But it is better to consider both events simultaneous. In fact this is a good
model to explain how the universe began. It also resolves the chicken or the egg paradox and
also gives a hint about how logic works.

5.1 The infinite human mind
Our mind is infinite because it can perform infinite loops. These loops may also be considered
acts of self- awareness gained by continuous repetition. Our mind works using conditions until
one of them is elevated to a fact. Our mind gives temporality and spatial dimensions to events
which previously existed in a soup of probabilities. At some stage consciousness is triggered and
runs all events thrugh, giving them some spatial and chronological properties. So consciousness
is an extended impossible object since it stretches out in space and time to infinity.
The participatory principle implies a sort of connection which binds things together in a very
special way, regardless of distance. Consciousness is an integral part of this process, so that it
neither determines nor is determined by the process. Rather it emerges from the ‘relics’ of the
collapsed wave- function in order to rearrange the pieces in an appropriate order. Consciousness
seems to be an extended event that constantly collapses everywhere, in the past and in the future.
Christopher Clarke argues that entanglement is an essential aspect of conscious perception.
Consciousness itself somehow arises from entangled systems:
“If the qualitative aspect of perception is produced by quantum entanglement between the states
of the brain and the states of perceived objects, then the supports of conscious loci are not just
the brain, but the whole of perceived space.” Clarke further suggests that in living organisms
quantum entanglement may help to account for their holistic properties: “If we consider a living,
and hence coherent, entity, then the entanglement will take over the individual states of the parts,
which will no longer be definable, and replace them with the quantum state of the entangled
whole.”
Consciousness also exhibits non- local characteristics, as it is able to ‘travel’ from one place to
another instantaneously. Does consciousness make this journey in space-time ‘physically’ or
‘mentally,’ ‘microscopically’ or ‘macroscopically,’ and what is the difference? It seems that the
distinction between ‘small’ and ‘large’ is a matter of compositeness. The more an object can be
divided in constituents the ‘bigger’ it must be. But in fact this is an analytical process that has
nothing to do with ‘size.’ Consciousness itself consists of many events that take place

simultaneously, so that it emerges as a certain configuration of these events at a certain point in
time. But all these events are equivalent, yet unrealized, space-like and time-like modes of the
same consciousness.
The deepest aspect of consciousness may reveal the origins of the universe itself. It is believed
that the universe began after a ‘Big Bang.’ This is a rather violent description of the birth of an
infinite loop, a gigantic one in this case. This was also the moment that the universal wavefunction collapsed, exposing a certain configuration of cosmic events. The extended present of
the universe was then born and it is still expanding. But at the level of consciousness this
expansion is artificial and secondary, covering with light the relics of the initial infinite loop in
the background. “Is the universe expanding, or is it just consciousness ‘propagating’ in its
extended present?” we could ask ourselves. And what is the difference? As far as the universe is
concerned, it is considered homogenous at a large scale. But when we focus our attention on
clusters of galaxies, we begin to discern irregular, fractal-like, regions of high intensity, against a
pervading, empty space. According to the degree of intensity we then find which cluster is older
than another, and we consider that the age of the galaxies is proportional to their distance with
respect to us. An analogous procedure goes on in our minds. Our own ‘universe of thoughts’ is
full of facts and events that possess a different degree of intensity. The more intense an event is,
the closer it is found to the present in the ‘space-time’ of our memory. And each time we pick up
a certain event to stand for the present. But if we regard events as past- like or future- like, and if
we consider the fact that all galaxies in the universe consist of different amounts of energy
density, then we may realize that all facts of consciousness, belonging either to the past or to the
future, are the ‘stars’ of focused attention on the invariable cosmic background of the extended
present. So the answer to the previous question is based on scale equivalence.
So the meaning of consciousness is unbiasedly brought forward as an object which occupies
space and contains the property of an orderly arrangement of things, thus time. From within the
extended present consciousness brings forward events, considers them, and attributes time to
them, by properly arranging them in space. But is our consciousness subject to space-time? On
the contrary, we could say that consciousness spans our extended present and that it may also
choose the topology and the chronology of events. So consciousness is an extended object which

attributes space- time to itself, by causally relating events to each other. In a sense,
consciousness is space-time. But this realization shouldn’t be considered surprising or arbitrary.
The universe doesn’t ‘think’ about space-time, we do. So we live within the context of our
consciousness and its extended present, in unison with the extended present of the universe. We
use focused attention and methods of observation to select things from an invariable and
indifferent cosmic background, which have a certain meaning to us. We point out here and there
causal relations between events in the universe, while the universe itself is an event that occurred
spontaneously out of nothing. So causality is not a fundamental property of things, but a
secondary process of consciousness, which offers the world space, time and meaning.
[https://www.scribd.com/doc/111723217/The-Extended-Present]

5.2 The illusion of free will

In a similar way consciousness reconstructs the archetypes out of an unconscious timeless and
space-less primordial background. When a picture is given with missing parts it can be shown
that the brain tends to reconstruct the picture as a whole. This is called unconscious inference. It
is inference because it builds from the part the whole and it is unconscious because it is done
automatically. Hermann von Helmholtz, who is often credited with the first study of visual
perception in modern times, examined the human eye and concluded that it was optically rather
poor. The poor-quality information gathered via the eye seemed to him to make vision
impossible. He therefore concluded that vision could only be the result of some form of

unconscious inferences: a matter of making assumptions and conclusions from incomplete data,
based on previous experiences.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_inference]
This is shown in the previous picture (the Hermann grid). The gray blobs which appear at the
intersections of black squares and white lines are not really there but they are inferred by the
brain. This is an example of the tricks our eyes and our brain can play. But if the way we infer
things is illusionary then what about the process which triggers the brain to infer things on its
own will? The problem of free will has been closely related to focused attention, the way the
brain chooses to concentrate on something against anything else in the background. There’s also
a variation of Zeno’s paradox, the quantum Zeno effect, according which it can be measured that
when attention is focused on a perceived context, this context seems to last more in the brain
than all other events. Somehow the brain causes time dilation for the particular event. But again
this spontaneous infinity produced by the brain is also found in nature (see for example delayed
choice experiments). Is therefore focused attention proof of free will, or is it just ‘guided’
attention?
We said that consciousness is constructed each consecutive time spontaneously triggered by
events from an infinity of possible configurations. These events are not necessarily produced by
consciousness but are generally found in the environment. For example when a noise occurs we
turn attention to the source of the noise. But this was a reaction to an external cause. What guides
us to make one choice against all possible others with respect to some stimulus which took
place? This is closely related to Solomonoff’s theory of universal inductive inference, which
measures the probability of a certain response of a computer or the brain, a number of data or
events given.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference]
Therefore the real power of will lies in predictability, the property or ability to choose the right
move from an infinity of possible moves using a pool of as many as possible ‘experiences,’
results of what had happened in similar cases in the past. However this property of the brain and
consciousness to make predictions does not mean the creation of new events but the ability of

‘positioning’ itself on the right place at the right time. We suite ourselves the best way we can by
just following the right stream of events. What seems much more interesting is the ability to
deny such a convenience, but again this is proof of an intelligence which is able and willing to
take risks with the perspective of having a greater benefit in the future. But the perspective is
clearly related to probabilities.

1. The surface of consciousness.
2. The sphere of internal ‘order.’
3. The routes through which contents are submerged into the unconscious.
4. Archetypes and their corresponding magnetic fields, which make the contents deviate from
their initial course by their attractive force.
ΑΑ. The area where pure archetypal processes become invisible and where the ‘primordial
pattern’ is accumulated.
The previous figure is taken from Jung’s book, ‘Archetypes and the collective unconscious.’ I
don’t think that archetypes produce magnetic fields. However there can be some form of
attraction, interaction in general, between archetypes and consciousness. What is also important
is the fact that, as Jung himself believed, not only consciousness is influenced by the archetypes
but also the archetypes change or take form by the interaction with consciousness. In other words
archetypes can be seen as quantities or universalities that take form and are given context
according to the visual patterns and emotions of the subject. For example, if we suppose an
archetype of change (related to the notion of change), this archetype could be given the shape of

a turn, the meaning of the word ‘change,’ or the operation of the mathematical symbol D for
derivative. All these could be interpretations of the archetype related to process of change, or
they could be related to some property of the corresponding archetype. But something must exist
either we call it ‘archetype’ or with another name, otherwise motion and change in general would
have been impossible. In modern physics it is action or ‘force’ the cause of motion but if we
make a second thought the force is exerted by the real cause, therefore the archetype has to do
with this deeper cause.
Therefore we should consider the assumption that “we are free to understand and follow the
rules.” We may also be free to change the rules but this must be done according to some preestablished rules of change. Therefore we have the ability of free will as an act of spontaneous
creation, exploring the infinite loops of creative thinking, gaining knowledge through continuous
repetition, even breaking one circle to get on the next one. A dog’s devotion to its Master is no
less important a man’s devotion to God. This is the ambiguous character of the ‘anthropic’
principle since it could be applied to any life form. Whether dogs or humans we just follow the
cause. This is why the archetype is so fundamental as much as important.

5.3 Possible fundamental symbols

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros]

The writing inside the snake eating its tail (ouroboros= tail eater in Greek) says ‘en to pan,’
which translates ‘one is everything.’ ‘En’ in Greek also means ‘inside,’ therefore what is inside
the circle is everything. ‘One’ is a representation of the unit archetype, and the circle or zero is a
representation of nothingness. The Greeks had problem accepting nothing as real because they
said it was impossible to make something out of nothing. Therefore nothingness may be seen as
the property of things to accommodate themselves and to contain other things; in this sense
emptiness is allowed. The Greeks (possibly Epicurus) have also given the best definition of
emptiness: Nothing is left after all things have been removed. Therefore emptiness can only be
conceived by the absence of what used to be in that place. An example from physics is a black
hole: what is left after a star has exploded.
Therefore emptiness is more like a property of things, the property of the unit to have an ‘inside’
and to be part of a universe of units found ‘outside.’ This is also how the zero set is treated in
number theory, according to the following process:
0={}
1 = {0} = {{ }}
2 = {0, 1} = {0, {0}} = {{ }, {{ }}}
3 = {0, 1, 2} = {0, {0}, {0, {0}}} ={{ }, {{ }}, {{ }, {{ }}}}
n = {0, 1, 2, ..., n−2, n−1} = {0, 1, 2, ..., n−2} ∪ {n−1} = (n−1) ∪ {n−1} = S(n−1)
Zero is the empty set. S is the successor function which performs the next step in the sequence.
Number 1 is the set which contains the 0 set as a subset. Number 2 is the set which contains 0
and 1 as subsets. And so on.
It is quite obvious and straightforward that the zero set is a unit, such as all other number- sets in
the series and that each number is a collection of things. Number 3 for example is the set
containing three things, the 3rd element being number 2. Therefore each number suggests a
multitude (3 apples) or assumes an order in a series (3rd element in a set of fruits). In such sense a
mathematical set can contain certain numbers (for example the number π, the length of the
perimeter, and the area of a circle). Vectors and tensors in physics work this way.

Closely related to nothingness is wholeness. The whole can be included in a circle which also
symbolizes zero. But is wholeness the same as emptiness? If zero is the perfect absence of
things, then everything would be all these things. If nothing is the property of units to contain an
‘inside’ then the whole is related with the property of the unit to ‘gather the pieces together.’
Bohm’s implicate order is exactly the infinite number of sub-fields which form the quantum
field. This division ad infinitum is not impossible and it reminds also Penrose’s or Escher’s
tilling. The formula however is not infinite. The basic problem with infinity as I know grasp is
that we treat infinity as a generalized notion for what we cannot reach (as we use the notion of
zero for anything we don’t see). However we had better treat infinity in a similar way as zero. As
all things contain empty areas so they contain infinite numbers. The circle for example. It can be
seen as hollow but it also includes the properties of number π; a spiral has the properties of
number φ, charged particles’ interactions involve the fine- structure constant α, light propagates
with speed c, masses’ attraction involve Newton’s constant G, and so on. It is important to note
that all these constants are infinite (by decimals) and they are found all across nature, expressing
the properties of things, or what is called matter (which also means ‘cause’), or what may be
simply called the archetype or unit.
We don’t really need more abstract expressions than these. We don’t need shapes to visualize an
archetype or a number but we may equivalently say ‘a circle’ or ‘a 2πr.’ We still have to say ‘2
apples,’ while ‘2π apples’ would be meaningless, but I also suspect that number 2 is an integer
approximation to an infinite number. Furthermore, an apple and an orange also express number 2
as a collection of 2 things. All these are possible interpretations and quantizations of objects and
their properties. Therefore of all possible sets of numbers to express these properties, I believe
the set containing the whole of physical constants (π, φ, α, c, G,…) would be the fundamental
one.
Therefore infinity is found not in the shape or size of things but in the way they express their
properties, how they appear as units and how they behave in interactions with other units. What
matters is not the circle but the essence of something which manifest itself respectively with a

special form of radial symmetry. What is really conserved here by this symmetry is not the
‘energy’ but the essence of an infinite quantity which we try to approach by measuring number π.
So why do we need archetypes in the form of special polygons or expressed as standard
procedures in order to understand nature and the cause of things? I would say that archetypes are
universalities which look like mathematical operators. In other words they are expressed by
symbols which impose operations such as projections, translations, rotations, multiplications,
annihilations. Whether things can perform such operations by themselves according to inherent
properties or they need somehow to come in contact with ‘beasts’ living in hyperspace to activate
such properties and run the operations is secondary. It is like the story of the ether and the
vacuum. The ether was abolished not because it cannot someday be found out there but because
it wasn’t needed. Therefore archetypes may be abolished and instead we may concentrate on the
essential properties of things.

5.4 The archetype of the archetype
Therefore the true and only archetype which has survived our discussion is the Unit. This is the
fundamental object, either it represents us, an apple, or the universe. In fact the properties of
matter are sufficient to form any kind of object or process, thing or being. What we consider the
soul is a collection of procedures and effects, such as memory, emotions, second thoughts, pain
and fear, will and hope, etc. What distinguishes animate from inanimate objects is not the subject
here. But I would say that whatever vibrates is living. Electrons are not dead and atoms are not
stupid. But are there similar units? Can two electrons be exactly the same? Probably not- they
can’t occupy the same space at the same time, therefore they differ at least because of different
coordinates. Therefore it is impossible two find two similar units in the universe. In other words
two similar numbers, as integers, are probably approximations of real infinite numbers. However
since the collection of all possible units should be an infinite set, an equivalent view is that of the
Unit with an infinite number of sub-divisions.
This is what we call the universe. It started as a point in space and it is still expanding like a
balloon. Of course the point and the balloon are objects which we use to visualize the notions of

the birth and propagation of the Unit. It could also be (the Unit transforming into) a ‘slit’ and a
‘cloud’ instead. And here comes again Zeno’s paradox: What is propagating out there, and how
come we see the motion if we are moving at the same speed? But what really evolves is the
number. The number φ on a rotating spiral is sufficient to produce the illusion of motion to
eternity. And what do we really mean by a point exploding in space and time, and how did it
explode if there was no space-time to explode from?

This is the meaning of an infinite loop. A real time machine: An implosion of the vacuum and an
explosion of the same vacuum in a different form. The chicken which went back in time to lay
the egg. But still it is two polar expressions of the same Unit. Imagine that the horizontal line in
the previous figure is an event horizon, and that above the line is the visible universe since the
Big Bang while below the line is what was left behind after the explosion. But the universe
would have to be in state B before the state A, in the same sense that before we cough we have to
empty the space in our lungs. One may say that state B was immediately destroyed after the birth
of the universe, before the implications of causality violation were manifested. But we could
equally destroy state A and go on living in the vacuum state of an unborn universe having the
illusion of a future-like Big Bang. But a unit cannot be half the circle. It is like virtual pairs of
particles performing microscopic infinite loops in the vacuum, only that in this case it was the
universe itself. Perhaps the other half is found beyond the event horizon. And that the line

representing the event horizon could be the only true present in the universe, while the universe
could be the greatest proof for the existence of a journey in time.
I’ve wondered why we always see the past when we look at the sky. It is because it takes light
time to travel from the distant stars here. But at the same time we see a distant star, those on the
same star would see us. We both see the past in the present state of the universe. And what about
the future? What if we received some strange super-luminal particles from the distant star at the
moment light was emitted from us (see for example Wheeler- Feynman absorber theory of
radiation)? Would this make us able to see their future? And again if there is a distant object in
the universe whose light we cannot see, how come it affects us instantaneously (see Mach’s
principle)? What kind of secret and strange harmony or symmetry makes things in the cosmos
come together defying the limits of space and time? Whatever the cosmological equivalent of
quantum entanglement, it seems that non- locality is found not only in the very small but in all
scales. The universe as a fundamental Unit is non-local, as it is able to be informed of its parts
instantaneously, to regenerate its pieces with dark energy simultaneously, and, at the same time,
to preserve the information of its own existence.
Thus the Unit I believe is the best candidate for the archetype of archetypes. Duality is produced
by the simple splitting of a unit, like Pauli’s doublets. In psychology Jung also noted the
phenomenon of the duplication of cases, in which an event comes true and then acquires the
ability to infinitely replicate itself. This may be regarded as a pure expression of the Unit. We
saw that a more complete way to view the world is not as an object which is constructed by
infinite parts but as an object which divides itself into infinite parts, or that both views are
equivalent. Therefore duplication is an example of multiplication. The ability of a unit to divide
itself may be regarded as a property and can be described by some operation. A transformation
operation may explain the different shapes that the Unit may take. Another property is the ability
of spontaneous generation of the Unit as an infinite loop. The universe is the ultimate example.
The third important property is self- awareness. The universe came into being, begun to replicate
or subdivide its parts, but also has somehow the control over the whole. In physics this is
expressed by Mach’s principle (the total mass of the universe produces the inertia of a single
object in the universe.) This is the ultimate expression of non-locality and nobody knows how it

works. But simultaneity is the key word. The universe somehow came into existence not as an
expanding point but as a complete whole, even if afterwards each part needed time to take
specific form. The three fundamental properties of the Unit, spontaneity, regeneration, and
wholeness is the Holy Trinity of properties which makes the Unit or the Universe infinite, everlasting, and endless. Like a circle bounded and infinite.

5.5 Beyond the number and its symbols
The Number therefore is the Unit and its symbols are its different expressions. Ratios or notes
are mathematical or musical expressions of symmetries. I believe that nobody till now has been
able to improve Kepler’s harmonic theory because nobody clever enough has been born yet.
Modern science lacks music, while music was an integral part of any philosophy in ancient
times. In modern times we as units have been divided but have lost the knowledge of the whole.
We have degraded consciousness to the level of the personal ego. We still use oral speech to
communicate, instead of some highly advanced form of telepathy, while most of the times when
we talk, we don’t know what we are talking about. We have no definite idea about the meanings
of zero, everything, infinity, simultaneity, creation, regeneration. We don’t even grasp the
importance of expressions of the pure number, such as π, φ, c, etc.
The division can be further illustrated by the total lack of any relationship between modern
physics and modern psychology. While in ancient times ‘physis= nature’ and ‘psyche’ were two
aspects of the same reality, in modern times physis and psyche are very much separated. In fact
modern psychology is treated by most physicists like a pseudoscience equal to alchemy or
astrology. However these same physicists tend to systematically forget that all notions in physics,
such as energy, matter, force, inertia, wave-particle duality of light, etc., are as much ghost- like
as the psyche. A truly powerful scientific method of the future will only be sufficiently complete
if it includes both notions, the physis and the psyche under the same unified description.
(Quantum mechanics with its almost psychic wave-function Ψ is very promising).
Probably we have made a lot of false steps to learning and to knowledge. Instead of building a
spiritual world we live in a material society surrounded by the ugliness of human exploitation

and environmental pollution. Furthermore it may be not only the symbols we use in oral
communication but also the operations we recognize in mathematical or logical relations. For
example the simplest operation 1+1=2 is meaningless. You cannot add different things and two
units are always two different things. Probably we are not sophisticated enough as a species to
grasp the processes of a more advanced method of symbolic representation. But as the Unit
propagates and expands, evolution comes naturally. So I guess that someday the time will come
when we will be conscious and knowledgeable enough to become One as the Unit.

mailto: christselentis@gmail.com
Last revised: 9/23/2015