Yin Yang and Einstein

[DonJunbar]

Yin/yang, north/south, man/woman, heaven/earth, night/day, sun/moon. Compelling imagery, but no scientific link between all of those. Certainly no closer to any greater truth than the four elements of earth, wind, water, fire, and heart.

 

[Tricky]

Who here sees the relation between classic "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" and the fundamentals of evolution?

The first pair relates to the nature of propagation and increasing numbers, while the second pair describes the increasing diversity of populations through time.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Who here sees the relation between classic "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" and the fundamentals of evolution?

The first pair relates to the nature of propagation and increasing numbers, while the second pair describes the increasing diversity of populations through time.

The blue one was clearly intelligently designed.

The red one? God just phoned that crap in.

 

[kblood]

Non sequitur.

Your next reply at least tried coming up with a reasoning behind this. So I will reply to this there.

Energy, mass, and the speed of light can all be measured. Ying and yang can't.

Not as long as Yin/Yang is only a concept with nothing put into it to make use of what it. You can also say A = B. Then you just need to figure out how.

B might be x * y / z, but then A is as well. The fact about Yin/Yang and its symbol is that its a symbol and a concept of balance.

So Yin = Yang. Thats how we can compare the Yin and Yang to math and science. Yin and Yang is relative to each other and if Einstein was right, then everything is relative... somehow. We might be able to put up something and claim it not being directly relative to something else, but that was not Einsteins claim. Only that it was relative. As he showed a relation and balance between energy, time and mass.

Any equation with an equals sign is "in balance". That's what the equals part means.

Thanks, that was my point.

No, a ton of lead weighs the same as a ton of feathers, but a ton of feathers does not equal a ton of lead. You're conflating equality with balance.

True, they are relative and can balance each other out when it comes to weight. Sometimes you need to find the relation between the two to find out the balance they have between them. Its possible for them to be relative to each other, without being the same.

 

[kblood]

You are incorrect in both theories due to some partial understanding and mainly gross misunderstanding.

the theory or yin/yang does not say that all things are relative, the in/yang portion of the symbol does contain a small area of the other. What you fail to understand is the portion, yes light/dark contain small amounts of the other. That is not relative. If you are going to explore some concepts you need to actually study them from the 中国 sources, not western glosses of them. the female has small aspects of the male, it is not relative, it is female and one very small area is male, so on and so on.

The essence is in the balance, not within objects but between objects.

And relativity is totally out of your understanding. The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, how is that relative, that is constant.

Einstein said everything is relative, and the speed of light is relative, because it can change in relation to something else. Even itself, since you can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light is supposed to be the fastest possible speed though. So you should probably say the maximum speed of light, since "the speed of light" is not in itself a constant.

It is impossible to talk about yin or yang without some reference to the opposite, since yin and yang are bound together as parts of a mutual whole (e.g., you cannot have the back of a hand without the front).

Parts of a mutual whole. Seems to fit with Einsteins theory as I see it.

Symbolism and importance
...
Yin is characterized as slow, soft, yielding, diffuse, cold, wet, and passive; and is associated with water, earth, the moon, femininity and nighttime.

Yang, by contrast, is fast, hard, solid, focused, hot, dry, and aggressive; and is associated with fire, sky, the sun, masculinity and daytime.[5]

Since Yin and Yang are concepts they can also be applied to psychology and imagination instead of just physical relations between light and shadow. Which I agree was never the primary use intended for Yin/Yang.

In nature:

For instance, dropping a stone in a calm pool of water will simultaneously raise waves and lower troughs between them, and this alternation of high and low points in the water will radiate outward until the movement dissipates and the pool is calm once more. Yin and yang thus are always opposite and equal qualities. Further, whenever one quality reaches its peak, it will naturally begin to transform into the opposite quality: for example, grain that reaches its full height in summer (fully yang) will produce seeds and die back in winter (fully yin) in an endless cycle.

About how it symbolizes balance. But also cycles, because with time something more clearly can be seen as in balance with everything else. Interconnected as the Wiki page claims the concept is about, and so do I.

Einstein's theories as I am pointing out did to science what many before him had tried, showing an interconnectedness between energy, matter and time. In a testable and relatively simple equation.

So as you said, the male has a very small part of female, and vice versa. But are you then claiming that you can be, or cannot be as male as you are female? That if you are male your feminine side is not only there in relation to your masculine side? Can you become more feminine without becoming less masculine? In other words, can you also become more of both then? If so, then yes, they are not relative to each other or in a balance with each other. And you cannot put them into an equation in any way at all. But is that really what Yin and Yang shows?

I might have misunderstood the concept, or maybe I got it before I read about it on Wikipedia. Maybe you know better than me, I do not know that, I am just asking questions.

 

[kblood]

Nope, where does it say that you can transform yin into yang, where exactly in a chinese sourse does it say that?

What happens to shadow when light enters? What happens to light when shadow comes over it? It has to follow the equation and make way for the other. Can't hot become cold? Can't soft become hard? Can't dry become wet?

I do not understand your concept of Yin/Yang so far.

I am not sure you really understand Putnam, or at least in the interpretations you are pretending they made, objects are what they are, the concepts we apply to them are concepts but to say that because concepts are relative the things we observe about objects are relative is a huge mistake. Newtonian momentum is accurate until you approach the speed of light, then you add other concepts from Einstein to the concept. This does not mean anything about the Newton definitions except you add to them, it is obvious that concepts change and are not constant through time.

And I add to all of it by claiming that they are also part of why the concept of Yin/Yang applies to everything. Why Einstein was right when he claimed everything is relative.

Now that makes sense as does the contextual parameters of the way humans use language. However realism is not metaphysical realism, object within the world appear to behave consistently and behave consistently, the mass of the electron does not vary unless it approaches the speed of light and it does so consistently.

So there is a balance until it changes? So its not yin / yang because the balance might have more than just two dimensions? I still do not see where I got it wrong.

Now the fact that two people may may disagree upon the labels used to describe reality does not mean that the world is not real, it appears to be until you can show otherwise. Any statement about the 'truth' of some statement are dependent upon the assumptions and idiomatic usage of the individuals in discussion.

The world is as real as we believe it to be. Because we are what we believe, until we stop being. Which might happen when we die, but in relation to our thoughts, we are what we believe we are. In relation to our physical surroundings, we are atoms and molecules working in an interesting and beautiful harmony and disharmony, all in a balance that makes us what we label as a living thinking being.

However the mass of an electron is accurately described by the Newtonian mechanics plus Einstein's. It is trivial and obvious that the way we describe things in concepts and language matters in teh accuracy of statement.

Yes, we are limited and freed by the limitations of language. It gives us something to debate and understand but we might also misunderstand it or use it in wrong ways. Why would accuracy has any effect on how its impossible to have anything to do with Yin/Yang?

Where you err Kblood and I don't think you understand is this, teh variation in semsnatic descriptions does not mean that reality doesn't exist and that it is someehow a fuid concept subject to change, it means that our words and concepts change.

I never claimed so. I am just stating that Yin/Yang and Einstein is proving the same thing, that everything is more interconnected than our scientists even today seems to be able to understand.

You can not defy gravity, you can not violate the laws of physics, as long as you understand that the 'laws of physics' are an ad hoc semantics description of the behavior of objects in reality. the fact that the use of the word gravity changes and has contextual parameters does not mean that is you step off a high cliff with no means of saving yoursllf that you will nopt smassh into teh surface below you.

Even if you call gravity bob, your momentum george and the surface sally, the force of bob will increase your george and when your body contacts sally your body will smash into it propotional to george and likely harm you.

Now that does not mean that all concepts have some validity

But we did already defy gravity, because we gained a better understanding of how to do so. First by figuring out the concept of gravity being there, and the possibility that it could be defied. Then we found ways of defying it, and now we are doing so on a daily basis. But we cannot do so without adhering to the balance of all things. We still need a means of flight, and it requires some kind of energy to make it happen whatever the means are. Sometimes the energy needed, comes from climbing a hill.

 

[kblood]

...Right. Because I feel like citing someone who already started answering this,

The problem here is that Yin =/= Yang. Not even remotely. What you're actually claiming here is that 1 = -1. If you can't figure out any problems with that equation, we can certainly try to start teaching you basic math.

No.. more like 1 = 0, but I get your point. This is where we could begin debating paradoxes and why they might still possibly exist even if they seem impossible. If you'd like to I sure would not mind the debate going in that direction.

...and everything is not in balance.

Since when?

Einstein didn't come up with the general concept of relativity, either in philosophy or physics. He just extended it to show what happens at extreme velocities.

(It also happens at less extreme velocities, but it's not noticeable.)

Probably true. He could probably not have become the person he was if he had lived 50 years earlier, maybe even just 20. Hard to say though.

Yin/yang, north/south, man/woman, heaven/earth, night/day, sun/moon. Compelling imagery, but no scientific link between all of those. Certainly no closer to any greater truth than the four elements of earth, wind, water, fire, and heart.

Night becomes day? Day becomes night? And if you go north enough, then north becomes south. A man can become a woman.

Heaven and earth is mostly concepts as well. The moon and sun is an analogy of day and night again.

 

[Twiler]

This is just too vague to be meaningful.

Kblood, what exactly are you claiming about relativity and ying/yang?

 

[Aridas]

No.. more like 1 = 0, but I get your point. This is where we could begin debating paradoxes and why they might still possibly exist even if they seem impossible. If you'd like to I sure would not mind the debate going in that direction.

No. Your equation is 1 = -1, unless you're using concepts that are completely different from yin and yang. The way you were expressing it in a previous post in your string was altering the equation so that it's the absolute values of both sides, which is not, at all, similar to general relativity.

With your attempt to say that you're trying to say that 1 = 0, do I detect an attempt to articulate something that would be far, far better expressed as 1 - 1 = 0? Or, rather, that the NET value is zero, but that there's most definitely something there, even though the parts cancel each other out?

Either way, your comparison between general relativity and yin and yang doesn't work, except on very superficial levels, based on your arguments so far.

 

[Dancing David]

Einstein said everything is relative, and the speed of light is relative, because it can change in relation to something else. Even itself, since you can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light is supposed to be the fastest possible speed though. So you should probably say the maximum speed of light, since "the speed of light" is not in itself a constant.

You don't know and so that says a lot, the speed of light is constant, you are wrong.

Show where the speed of light changes.

Parts of a mutual whole. Seems to fit with Einsteins theory as I see it.

Your lack of understanding is apparent.

Since Yin and Yang are concepts they can also be applied to psychology and imagination instead of just physical relations between light and shadow. Which I agree was never the primary use intended for Yin/Yang.

In nature:


About how it symbolizes balance. But also cycles, because with time something more clearly can be seen as in balance with everything else. Interconnected as the Wiki page claims the concept is about, and so do I.

Einstein's theories as I am pointing out did to science what many before him had tried, showing an interconnectedness between energy, matter and time. In a testable and relatively simple equation.

Which you don't understand, requires a constant speed of light.

So as you said, the male has a very small part of female, and vice versa. But are you then claiming that you can be, or cannot be as male as you are female?

You keep changing the topic, that is funny.

That if you are male your feminine side is not only there in relation to your masculine side? Can you become more feminine without becoming less masculine? In other words, can you also become more of both then? If so, then yes, they are not relative to each other or in a balance with each other. And you cannot put them into an equation in any way at all. But is that really what Yin and Yang shows?

maybe you should study more about the concepts from old chinese sources.

I might have misunderstood the concept, or maybe I got it before I read about it on Wikipedia. Maybe you know better than me, I do not know that, I am just asking questions.

Nope you also make false blanket assertions, the speed of light is constant, withing the parameters of HIP for photons.

 

[Dancing David]

What happens to shadow when light enters? What happens to light when shadow comes over it? It has to follow the equation and make way for the other. Can't hot become cold? Can't soft become hard? Can't dry become wet?

Whoosh.

I do not understand your concept of Yin/Yang so far.

That is because you only read pop western interpretations of it.

And I add to all of it by claiming that they are also part of why the concept of Yin/Yang applies to everything. Why Einstein was right when he claimed everything is relative.

Which isn't what Einstein said, further whoosh.

So there is a balance until it changes? So its not yin / yang because the balance might have more than just two dimensions? I still do not see where I got it wrong.

maybe you should actually read Putnam.

The world is as real as we believe it to be. Because we are what we believe, until we stop being. Which might happen when we die, but in relation to our thoughts, we are what we believe we are. In relation to our physical surroundings, we are atoms and molecules working in an interesting and beautiful harmony and disharmony, all in a balance that makes us what we label as a living thinking being.

The world is.

Yes, we are limited and freed by the limitations of language. It gives us something to debate and understand but we might also misunderstand it or use it in wrong ways. Why would accuracy has any effect on how its impossible to have anything to do with Yin/Yang?

Maybe you should use terms as they are used.

I never claimed so. I am just stating that Yin/Yang and Einstein is proving the same thing, that everything is more interconnected than our scientists even today seems to be able to understand.

Whoosh

But we did already defy gravity, because we gained a better understanding of how to do so. First by figuring out the concept of gravity being there, and the possibility that it could be defied. Then we found ways of defying it, and now we are doing so on a daily basis. But we cannot do so without adhering to the balance of all things. We still need a means of flight, and it requires some kind of energy to make it happen whatever the means are. Sometimes the energy needed, comes from climbing a hill.

You are so wrong, flying is not defying gravity at all.

 

[Mashuna]

This is all just an argument by bad analogy.

 

[tsig]

What happens to shadow when light enters? What happens to light when shadow comes over it? It has to follow the equation and make way for the other. Can't hot become cold? Can't soft become hard? Can't dry become wet?

I do not understand your concept of Yin/Yang so far.



And I add to all of it by claiming that they are also part of why the concept of Yin/Yang applies to everything. Why Einstein was right when he claimed everything is relative.



So there is a balance until it changes? So its not yin / yang because the balance might have more than just two dimensions? I still do not see where I got it wrong.



The world is as real as we believe it to be. Because we are what we believe, until we stop being. Which might happen when we die, but in relation to our thoughts, we are what we believe we are. In relation to our physical surroundings, we are atoms and molecules working in an interesting and beautiful harmony and disharmony, all in a balance that makes us what we label as a living thinking being.



Yes, we are limited and freed by the limitations of language. It gives us something to debate and understand but we might also misunderstand it or use it in wrong ways. Why would accuracy has any effect on how its impossible to have anything to do with Yin/Yang?



I never claimed so. I am just stating that Yin/Yang and Einstein is proving the same thing, that everything is more interconnected than our scientists even today seems to be able to understand.



But we did already defy gravity, because we gained a better understanding of how to do so. First by figuring out the concept of gravity being there, and the possibility that it could be defied. Then we found ways of defying it, and now we are doing so on a daily basis. But we cannot do so without adhering to the balance of all things. We still need a means of flight, and it requires some kind of energy to make it happen whatever the means are. Sometimes the energy needed, comes from climbing a hill.

I defied gravity once, it sure hurt when I hit the ground.

 

[tsig]

Einstein said everything is relative, and the speed of light is relative, because it can change in relation to something else. Even itself, since you can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light is supposed to be the fastest possible speed though. So you should probably say the maximum speed of light, since "the speed of light" is not in itself a constant.



Parts of a mutual whole. Seems to fit with Einsteins theory as I see it.



Since Yin and Yang are concepts they can also be applied to psychology and imagination instead of just physical relations between light and shadow. Which I agree was never the primary use intended for Yin/Yang.

In nature:


About how it symbolizes balance. But also cycles, because with time something more clearly can be seen as in balance with everything else. Interconnected as the Wiki page claims the concept is about, and so do I.

Einstein's theories as I am pointing out did to science what many before him had tried, showing an interconnectedness between energy, matter and time. In a testable and relatively simple equation.

So as you said, the male has a very small part of female, and vice versa. But are you then claiming that you can be, or cannot be as male as you are female? That if you are male your feminine side is not only there in relation to your masculine side? Can you become more feminine without becoming less masculine? In other words, can you also become more of both then? If so, then yes, they are not relative to each other or in a balance with each other. And you cannot put them into an equation in any way at all. But is that really what Yin and Yang shows?

I might have misunderstood the concept, or maybe I got it before I read about it on Wikipedia. Maybe you know better than me, I do not know that, I am just asking questions.

Oh waiter! there's a logical fallacy in my word salad.

 

[fuelair]

How many here believe in and see relations in between Einsteins theories of relativity, both the general and E=Mc2 and with the concept of Yin/Yang?

How about the phrase, everything is relative? Is everything relative? Does Yin/Yang suggest everything is relative?

No. it says that for everything there is/must be on opposite/opposition. Einstrin says nothing of the sort. The first is a philosophy/religion, the second is science/the real world. I hope this assists you on your way to enlightenment.



Reality: it's the re-al Thing!!

 

[Pixel42]

Wait, yin and yang are opposites of each other, not the same thing at all (=), or even close to it. The opposites must balance, but one cannot be converted to the other.

Unlike mass and energy....

Quite.

Attempting to fit something as complex and insightful as relativity into the simplistic and essentially meaningless yin/yang framework is absurd and pointless. It can't help anyone reach an understanding of relativity and what it tells us about the nature of the universe, indeed I think it's more likely to hinder such an understanding.

 

[tsig]

Quite.

Attempting to fit something as complex and insightful as relativity into the simplistic and essentially meaningless yin/yang framework is absurd and pointless. It can't help anyone reach an understanding of relativity and what it tells us about the nature of the universe, indeed I think it's more likely to hinder such an understanding.

I understand Einstein said "I've had it out the yin-yang with people misinterpreting relativity".

YMMV

 

[dafydd]

"the speed of light" is not in itself a constant.

Wrong. The constant speed of light was the basis of Einstein's thinking on this matter.

 

[Visual Purple]

And relativity is totally out of your understanding. The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, how is that relative, that is constant.

Unless I'm missing something, Einsteinian relativity no more or less "relative" than Newtonian relativity. In Einsteinian relativity, the speed of light is constant, regardless of reference frame, whereas in Newtonian relativity, the speed of light changes, but you don't have the time and space dilation effects. Thus, the "everything is relative" that people think that they can draw from the name "the theory of relativity" is a total misunderstanding of how physics changed. It's a shift in what changes, not an increase in "relativeness."

 

[Tricky]

This is all just an argument by bad analogy.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out in a lame attempt at humor in my "One Fish Two Fish" post. You can make a bad analogy to science using anything, including pointless quasi-mystical philosophical constructs, or children's literature.