Revisión en español, aquí
This is a free adaptation of Wen Ran Zhang YinYang Bipolar logic, there is a review of it at the end of the article.
EQUILIBRIUM-BASED TRUTH MODELS
«We need to break the gridlock»
Embracing truth-based duality leads to truth mis-management, which is proven by the fact that modern science has so far failed to find ether, monad and monopoles nor even gives beautiful explanations from Nature’s harmony. Unless being and truth can escape equilibrium or non-equilibrium, equilibrium-based and harmony-centered YinYang may be the ultimate revealing and regulating power for being and truth (The dynamic holistic truth).
Unitary bipolarity is qualified to be as the unique formal generalization of Boolean logic, bringing static bivalent truth domain to truth being in a dynamic equilibrium domain. Bipolar equilibrium-based models can be deemed as inclusive, integrative, complementary, and dynamic extensions of truth-based models for more effective modeling and decision analysis with either qualitative or quantitative data. An equilibrium-based holistic approach does not exclude but subsumes truth-based methodologies, as long as equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions are not violated. A simple YinYang bipolar dynamic equilibrium of negative-positive energy/information (n,p) finds no equivalent unitary representation in truth-based (bivalent) models.
The essence of being is a bipolar dynamic equilibrium looking for harmony. Things cause one another because Mother Nature ordained a pre-established equilibrium and harmony for everything in the universe through YinYang bipolarity, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics.
Any being, including the universe itself, is a holistic dynamic equilibrium of input-output and/or negative-positive energies/information. The negative and positive energies or the Yin and Yang also seem to be unavoidable for the regulation and unification of the multiverses.
«Dipoles are observed everywhere; particle-antiparticle (−p,+p) pairs and action-reaction (−f,+f) are believed the most fundamental elements of the universe; negative and positive energies form the regulating force of the universe or even multiple universes (Hawking & Mlodinow)»
YinYang bipolar geometry is equilibrium-based that transcends spacetime, being, and truth because particle-antiparticle bipolarity can survive bigcrunch and-or a black hole. Despite all beings and truths being subject to observation and limited to certain spacetime, with the bipolar relativity approach both realities can be much better understood.
Bipolarity may also be holding the key to the long-standing puzzles of quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, quantum biology, cognitition, and mind-matter unification. The unification of logical linearity and physical nonlinearity develop holistic bipolar dynamic models for organizational modeling with logically provable linearity soundness. So YinYang bipolar quantum entanglement can be an equilibrium-based ubiquitous regulating power of space-time, being, truth, science and philosophy.
The unification of energy and information makes energy/information conservation, regeneration and degeneration of a physical or social system mathematically computable. Finally, the unification of equilibrium with a bipolar harmony can be defined as a dynamic equilibrium with moderate oscillation and limited imbalance. A simple How-to for harmonizing can be phrased in this way:
* Apply linear division to avoid bipolar fission in a separation or avoid linear division for bipolar fission
* Control acceleration and speed in growth to avoid bipolar fission.
* Enhance balance to avoid oscillation
WHY STATIC TRUTH-BASED MODELS ARE NOT EVEN WRONG? WHAT TO LEARN?
Every time anyone vibrates only one of the possible polarities as a truth within a Static Truth-based model, the other polarity would tend to be linearly denied by that person, but the other pole would get quantumly reinforced to be needed to be vibrated in another side of Nature. So in a outsidish world where Static truth based models are (linearly) very propagated, this YinYang equilibrium logic should also arrive (linearly) with a higher enlighment properties for your inner yourself. So, if you embrace the holistic dynamic equilibrium approach in a world dominated by static-truth stands, you are likely to be very easily enlightened.
«With the new geometry, bipolar quantum entanglement can be logically defined; space and time can be the result of quantum agent interaction; emotional intelligence can be included in the general category of quantum intelligence»
Good, but he later contradicts himself with:
«Bipolar reciprocal interactions created spacetime and caused all changes in the universe but not vice versa»
Wrong, why not that is nature-man, and epigenetics is the man-nature retrocausality phrased in the Participatory Anthropic Principle?. Furthermore in this sense and very curiously, he himself cites his own mistake, as he bugs on Bohr’s same mistake:
«Yin and Yang in general are the most fundamental opposites of nature, but man and woman, space and time, particle and wave, truth and falsity are not exactly bipolar opposites.»
«…This could be the reason why Bohr found causal description of a quantum process unattainable and we have to content ourselves with particle-wave complementary descriptions. It may also be the ultimate reason why modern physics so far failed to find a definitive battleground for quantum gravity.»
So oh, if man and woman or else are not governed by YinYang Bipolarity, there is no Holism in the theory, Man-Nature is anthropocentric and not reciprocal to Nature-Man. More basically speaking, he uncoherently says that there is a top down harmony, which has not the down-to-top integral expression. So very obvious fuzzy clarifying conceptual pairing as “Complex simplicity”, “Effected cause”, or else, have to be seen separated one from another, as he sees an equilibrium of “subjective essences” like cooperation-competition, but doesn’t want to see the pair as a reciprocal constant of “cooperative competition” and “competitive cooperation”.
He also does a very poor simplification of a minimal general integral ontology of pairs, and doesn’t even consider how they scale up to triads. So, this lack of integrality, minimal scalable wholeness with its daily life models is what we try to add with this flove.org project on the top of what he and others have developed.