A metaphor is
Not like an analogy
A visual kiss
5 dots walk into a bar.
They seem to be together, but more like a spectrum than a group.
Dot 1 is pure science. Dot 5 pure art.
Actually, Dots 1-3 seem like science and 3-5 seem like art. What gives?
We start with observation, examination and categorization, i.e. definition. That’s Dots 1-3.
But with the latter we start to enter the seemingly more subjective world of interpretation, though we call it documentation. That’s Dot 3’s turf. And what a broad, expanding turf it is!
In fact, it is so broad and rich that it is fertile ground for even more interpretation — even embellishment.
Enter the land of the analogy. The land where everything is “like” something else. Your reflection in the mirror is like — very much like — you. You, only a reverse of you! Not just “only a reverse of you,” but a reverse image of you. It is an image of you — albeit reversed. But it is not “you!” It’s only “like” you. And, it is not even what everyone else knows as you — unless they too are looking at the reflection of you. You know — that little mole on the right side of your cheek — everything is reversed in the reflected image. Everyone else sees that mole correctly on the right side of your check! But not you1
So Dot 4, a.k.a. “analogy” is really a form of simile — literally “similar” to. Our mirror reflection is a bit tricky. It has it’s technical base in pure science, yet it is illusionary. Is it the same? Or is it simply similar? One could one even say it is false. An un-truth. Another could say it is a true and accurate accounting — reflection — of the real source, with the one proviso: it is *mirror symmetric, not left to right, but front to back.
Bilateral symmetry draws a axial line down the center and reflects the sides equal but oppositely. But wait, you object, that would mean our cheek mole would be on both sides of the reflected face, or, on neither side.
Right you are if you hold the mirror right up to your nose.
No, in this plain old mirror reflection, the entire image of your face is reversed as each and every photon bouncing off your actual face is flipped 180° — not left to right — from its order, front to back.
An image that “is a lie, that reveals a truth” as in Picasso’s definition of what art is. Yes, your reflection is a work of art, so go take — or is it “make” — a photo of it and do what’s best for you. You might want to take a selfie photo and compare it with the mirror-reflection photo to see which one(s) you like best! Of course lighting is everything so you will want to get it the same. It might be harder than you think.
Moving on to the last dot, Dot 5: Metaphor — the pure art of metaphor. Another form of analogy — but lose the “like” and replace it with the “is.” We are no longer caressing the “this is like” analogous art form anchored on a more direct linkage to a previous image. No, we are now taking the big jump — across the terra-firma linkage within one continent, if you will — across great bodies of water onto new lands, completing our mixed metaphoric journey of interpretive presentation. We can no longer get by on this or that is “like” — no — now it “is.” It is what it is. It will be up to our own individual, imaginative and highly subjective interpretation of what we see, hear, feel — experience — that informs us. Now one might ask, “Which is the true truth?” The truth that science expounds or the truth that experience reveals?
Could it be that all five dots are but oversimplified categorizations of a natural spectrum of acquisition? An acquisition of what is in front of you, how can you make sense of it, to what degree is it helpful versus harmful to your meaningful survival and what can you do about it?
Dot 1: Observation
Dot 2: Examination
Dot 3: Documentation
Dot 4: Analogy-Simile
Dot 5: Metaphor
Five dots that represent a spectrum line from logic to emotion intelligence. To erase — or simple ignore — one part of the line is “like” — no “is” — a reflection without a source.
~~~
Reference: https://writers.com/simile-vs-metaphor-vs-analogy-definitions-and-examples
*Here's a video with Richard Feynman explaining mirror reflection.
~~~
That said, just what is the connection to math? Specifically to numbers?
OMG, I am so astonished! So thrilled! So beyond belief that you asked! And so humbled. Is it possible for me to share my own overwhelming joy at studying simple Whole Integer Numbers (WIN) and the whole spectral line of richness that it reveals?
No.
Well, not to the level I would like you to experience.
Equations, formulas, geometric shapes, all that math language is not in and of itself sublimely beautiful. Well, actually, yes it is! That is, once you think through — even past — the math language. In my second year of Latin back in high school (which I barely passed), my teacher explained that one never really gets the language — the culture that it embodies — until you think through and past the words. At first the object horse translates to English word “horse” and then to the Latin “equus.” It’s only when "horse" = “equus” that one begins to experience it immersed within the culture. The same goes for math. Yes, some of the equations are absolutely beautiful in their profound encapsulation of something larger!
But more to the point: it has been my experience that the relationship of quantities — expressed as WINs — informs every aspect of every version of the Universe we are blinking our eyes at! Groups and connections, seamlessly linked by simple arithmetic, can ruthlessly account for every aspect of the spectrum line alluded to above. Yes, that includes everything form the metaphorical - emotional intelligence to the objective-driven observational realm! A=B, B=C, A=C may rule the roost at one end, but it does not, in and of itself, preclude A=B, B≠C, A=C at the other end. Why? If we use “A” and only “A” to define the rest of the alphabet, it may be true — but only in the sense of “A” — yet if we remain open to other means, we may find the truth of “C” both in terms of “A” and in terms of B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_X_Y_Z. And that’s just in the English alphabet!
Let’s go back for a moment to the self-reflection, you know, the mirror reflection of oneself. Now let’s look at it with two other lenses — or filters, if you will — entanglement and the general notion of a fractal.
A fractal is a self-similar, repeating, reiterative expression of self that generates a whole that mimics that expression-self.
Entanglement presents as two spacetime (ST) units that are equal, but opposite in some key measurable parameter like spin, e.i. a pair of two duplicate photons with opposite spin traveling away from each other. They are entangled when, despite any degree of separation, changing the spin value of either photon simultaneously changes that of the other member of the pair. Einstein famously called it “spooky action at a distance.” And he didn’t like it because it appears to violate the constant speed of light principle that lies at the heart of relativity.
~~~
https://astronomy.com/news/2022/10/what-is-quantum-entanglement
~~~
So if our self-reflection is like an entangled particle with everything equal — but some parameter opposite — to it’s co-joined mate, what happens if we change the source — you — in some way: you close your right eye. Does not the reflected self simultaneously close its left eye?
Is your self-reflection in any way a fractal-like expression? Well, it does generate itself by a self-similar, repeating, reiterative expression of its source — you — with the exception that there is a front-to-back rotational symmetry of each part that generates the whole, leaving the self-reflection as similar — very, very similar — to the source, but with mirror symmetry.
If we could maintain everything about the source—reflection while increasing the distance of separation, would that not change everything about what we think we really know about the Universe(s)? Imagine when you alternately open and close each eye here on earth and your self-reflection on the moon does so equally — but oppositely — and simultaneously in time! Now that’s what I call a good time!
Doesn’t it just beg the question: is quantum entanglement some form of mirror, front-to-back reflection, and, is it not driven by some form of fractal-expression? My bet is “you bet!” We typically only “see” one side of an alternating expression of the Universe, but you can bet your booty the other side simultaneously exists! This “opposite” but “self-similar” version — think: antimatter, dark matter and energy SpaceTime (ST) and all the Conservation Laws — must co-exist to account for both. If you want to “see” it, you have to dream! That’s what sleep is all about. It’s a reset so all the fractals can realign.
And of course you know all fractals are but an arithmetic-based accounting for simple quantities. Everything is numbers and numbers are just the addition of dots! Double 1 dot to give 2 dots. 1 dot + 1dot = 2 dots. Double 2 dots to give 4 dots. 2 dots + 2 dots =4 dots. Double 4 dots to give 8 dots... Now what happens if every dot is mirror reflected and one starts adding up the dots? The bar of mirrors becomes the "hall of mirrors!"
Bartender!
~~~
“Containers” contain
Just subtract out the non-primes
Only primes remain
And so in the end
After all is said and done
End where you begin
~~~
"It all comes down to 1+2=3...," he added on the way out.
To which the bartender added, "Hey, I just figured out something!"
He then proceeded to quickly jot down a few things on the back of napkin.
Question: What form is enclosed when utilizing a Perimeter (P) = to PN=xz=Area?
Answer: A Square containing a # of MPS=z² where #=n² and n=x/4.
As one can see in the Tables below “n” — the number of P, where PN/P=n — increases as a doubling, i.e. each successive “n” is 2•previous “n”, and as #=n², it follows that the number of MPS enclosed by the P=PN perimeter increases as the square of the previous #, e.i. 1-4-16-256-…
n n²
1 1
2 4
4 16
8 64
16 256
32 1024
64 4096
128 16384
256 65536
512 262144
1024 1048576
2048 4194304
4096 16777216
8192 67108864
16384 268435456
32768 1073741824
65536 4294967296
0 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384
1 1
2 4
4 16
8 64
16 256
32 1024
64 4096
128 16384
256 65536
512 262144
1024 1048576
2048 4194304
4096 16777216
8192 67108864
16384 268435456
"It seems that we have yet another example of the Inverse Square Law (ISL) in action," he smiled while grabbing another napkin.
As 4n=x and x=(z+1)/2, solving for z we get z=8n-1. One can see this along the "n" axis above.
That night he dreamt with a clarity like never before. The image of the Butterfly Fractal came up over and over. The doubling of quantity one generates the singularity - it is fractal 1. Every doubling leads to yet another embedded fractal - a fractal that is identitical to fractal 1 - but now there are two such fractals. Each of those have embedded fractal 1's, and so on, out to infinity. When the running sums of any given fractal are brought to light, the connections - and interconnections - between all the embedded fractals forms a neural net that is the Universe - the Multi-verse and the Complementary (a.k.a. "Polar")-verse.
He never slept better.
