This is part 2 about an insight which I received, so I believe, from my father on the evening of the anniversary of his death. I wrote up the story of how it happened, but it would have all gotten too long, so I am splitting out the actual insight from the other post.
In the other post I gave some background about what I was thinking about at the time, and I repeat it here, quoting myself:
“First some background: At the time when this happened, I was thinking much about how our 3D body and life is connected to a greater space, call it All-D, which contains a greater reality (after Frank DeMarco). 3D is only a subset within this greater “space” so it is never separate from it. Rather, everything is not just connected, but one continual whole: Our 3D world is an integral subset of a greater reality, and at the same time, it is there for us as well. (See my lead-article “Everything is connected: Our 3D world is a subset of a greater reality, All-D”).
We are thereby continually one with a larger part of our, call it, higher self, or Oversoul, or dare I say God. And if that is so, this is, in fact, what makes us able to receive guidance. And insights. Stemming from, well, from what? Or where? Not from outside of us, and not “from beyond,” because it is us, us extended, you see? “
That evening I was led to find a book on mathematics, and it had a bookmark on the page that talked about complex numbers. I knew in a flash that this was a mathematical description of what I was thinking about:
We are, and reality is, like a complex number: there is a real part to it, and an “imaginary” part. In mathematics this forms a new kind of number, a new thing, but it is really a deeper disruption of ultimate reality.
Explaining the imaginary
So now, I face the difficult task, for me that is, to explain to you what a complex number is, and what an imaginary number is. Oh, just come along, it will be easy and fun.
In a way, this is the history of human understanding about numbers.
You see, what we today know about numbers grew over time, over thousands of years. There are different groupings of numbers. The first thing is simply what we tend to perceive: counting things. So we have numbers like 1,2,3… and so on. These are the integers. Then, we discovered that if we divide things, we get fractions, like 5/2 is something like 2.5 . So that is number between 1 and 2. Then, the concept of 0 was developed – imagine, at one time that had to be invented! And then we found negative numbers. And then numbers that are, say, infinite, like PI that go like 3.141…. without repeating itself, they are called the reals.
But then there was always one mystery remaining.
You see, in math we have something which we get if a number is multiplied with itself. So 2*2 would be 4. 3*3 is 9. 4*4 is 16 and so on
And there is an operation that is the inverse of it. So if you have 4, you are trying to find the number that multiplied by itself gives 4. That is the square root. Wo the √4 equals 2 ( and also -2, because -2*-2 is also 4)
But there is a problem. Because square roots only work on positive numbers. If you take the square root of,say, -4, then there is no answer! There is nothing in our real world that represents an answer to that!
So there was a mystery. The √-1 had no equivalent in the real world!
There was always this gap, and mathematicians felt it was there . But starting in the 16th century with Cardan, people started to use this mystery in formulas. Well, it went on for centuries until two, forgive me if I call them hobby mathematicians, Wessel and Argant, showed a geometric interpretation of it.
I don’t want to go too much into details here, but that was it then: It was understood that these strange number did have usefulness, great usefulness, and a definition was made:
You CAN have square roots of negative number if we introduce and define a new number: the imaginary number.
That number is defined as exactly that mystery: i = √-1 where ‘i’ is the imaginary number.
Thereby, you can solve any equation that had no solution before, such as the √-4 which is now simply i*√4.
Thus, he doors opened for many wonderful formulas and insights to be developed.
And a new TYPE of number was born as well. Just like we have integers, and fractions, and negative numbers, and reals, we now got COMPLEX NUMBERS.
A complex number is written like that: z = a + i * b.
Where z is the complex number, a is the REAL part, and b is the IMAGINARY part. The real part is what we can measure in our reality. The imaginary part we cannot.
These numbers are incredibly useful in physics and math, and help us to gain a deeper insight into the workings of reality, building relationships that we could not glimpse otherwise.
All this is only possible because we defined an imaginary number, a number that has no real meaning in the real world.
You see, we really never understood what this imaginary number really represents. Surely, nothing in “real space,” whatever that means, other than the one we perceive with our senses.
Could there be more to it?
An ontological interpretation of the imaginary number
Yes, yes, "ontological." A big word. But I promise to explain below, so just bear with me.
So now that I caught you up with the mathematical background, and hopefully did not lose you, let me now tie it back to the background given at the beginning.
Remember that I was thinking about our 3D body, or 3D reality, and that it is a subset of a greater space, All-D, integrally connected to it, really forming a whole. And it is because of this that we can receive guidance and so on.
It is with this background in mind, that, so I believe, my father, the great mathematician and bridge builder, led me to this book, and made me open it up on that page, bookmarked ether by him or me in some distant past, a page on complex numbers.
And I immediately made that connection: complex numbers describes us. And our reality. But not just THIS 3D reality, but all reality, greater reality, including the part in All-D as well, the “imaginary part.” The one we cannot measure.
That was the insight as I understood it. If it is right, I don’t know, but that is what I got out of it.
The implication of this is: now we have a (possible?) understanding of what ‘i‘ actually stands for. In philosophy, the study of Being is called “ontology.” And here is a possible explanation, an ontology or ontological interpretation, for the imaginary number.
It represents the connection with the greater space, the greater whole, which we cannot perceive with our senses.
“ i “ is a bridge to that space, that wholeness.
It allows for so many formulas, such as in quantum physics, to make sense of it for us, even though, strictly speaking, without knowing what “I “ stood for, we cannot really have a universal ontology either.
Now, with this ontological interpretation of "i", we have a new understanding.
I don't know if a scientist would accept this interpretation. But if they do, then a bridge to the greater whole is cast. Some call it "implicate order" (Bohm), some bardo, some God, but I am not going there right now.
I’ll leave you to ponder the consequences.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr