Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
All the regularities of objects in this Universe, both living and nonliving, can be
represented in terms of triads, each consisting of a pair of opposites (A & B) and a
third term, C. All these triads form a circular cone, some constituting the base of the
cone and others the body of the cone erected on it.
These triads, A-C-B, can be divided into two groups - the epistemological triads
(E-triads) identified with the horizontal triads (e.g., AC
0
B, AC
00
B in Fig.
2.7
), and
the ontological triads (O-triads) identified with the vertical ones (e.g., ACB,
C
0
CC
00
). One example of the E-triad is the well-known complementary relation
between the wave (A) and particle (B) behaviors of light (C). An example of the
O-triad is the triadic relation among Spinoza's Extension (A), Thought (B), and
Substance (also called God or Nature) (C); or the recently postulated complemen-
tary relation among energy/matter (A), information (B), and gnergy (C) (Ji 1991,
1995). The main difference between E- and O-triads is that the validity of the
relations embodied in the former can in principle be tested by scientific/experimen-
tal means, while the validity of the relations represented by the latter cannot be so
tested and must be judged on the basis of its utility in organizing data into coherent
models or pictures.
The Universe consists of two worlds - the Visible consisting of E-triads, and the
Invisible, converging on the Apex of the O-triads. The Visible World is
characterized by multiplicity and diversity as represented by the large number of
points on the periphery of the base of the cone, whereas the Invisible World is
characterized by a unity as symbolized by the Apex of the cone.
It is beyond the scope of the present topic to discuss the possibility of classifying all
the triads (numbering close to a hundred or more) that I have formulated during the
past decade or so (e.g., see Table
2.7
and Appendix B) and probably equally numerous
triads that C. S Pierce described in the late nineteenth century, but it appears feasible to
utilize the geometric properties of the circular cone depicted in Fig.
2.7
to divide them
into the E- and O-triads as defined in the conic theory of everything.
2.3.9 The Cookie-Cutter Paradigm and Complementarity
The cookie-cutter paradigm (CCP) of quantum physics has been described by
Mohrhoff (2002). Although CCP may have some shortcomings in representing
quantum physics, it may serve as a convenient metaphor for complementarity or
complementarism (Sect.
2.3
). It is interesting to note that CCP can also accommo-
date the “model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture
is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the
elements of the model to observations” that was recently proposed by Hawking and
Mlodinow (2010). The CCP model of complementarity consists of the following
identities:
1. Dough
reality (C term)
2. Cookie cutters
¼
¼
models
