Zero and the Nine Numbers of Creation

[CCoburn]

The Nine Numbers of Creation


There are nine numbers of creation; 10 is a reflection of 01 – literally here

• As above so below
• As within so without

There is a tree with 10 spheres referred as sefirot with zero being akin to the ein/ain(nothing, no, or none), and soph(limit), thus, ein soph which translates to no limit of nothing from which emerges the limitless light – the ain soph aur of Kabbalah.

Which does seem kind of reminiscent of contemporary inflation/expansion theories.

[CCoburn]

This is the Hermetic depiction of this tree of life:

---

The above and below axiom is fitting for this two-dimensional depiction, but in an actual three-dimensional cosmological setting the within and without would be more appropriate as in actuality this is an expanding spherical model from an initial singular dimensionless point – a primordial point.

[CCoburn]

Sidenote...

Ever wonder why we are globally taught to count from "1" from the earliest of ages?

1 - 10 = Ten numbers, all definative and specific and anything else is a different number. The same principle applies regardless of how high we count.

What happens if we start at "0"?

0 - 10 = Ten SPACES, and because there is no limit to metaphorical space, we have an infinite amount of possibilities.

Explained as the difference between "Analogue" and "Digital" perhaps.

One is a single wave and a singularity like the groove of a record or a natural sound wave, the other is a Particle and disconnected like the dots and lines of a CD disk containing only specific parts of a sound wave.

Time and Space is Everything.

Tesla understood so much, bless the cheeky little chap. Immortal, and he knew it.

I'm not sure I understand 'some of this'. We use numbers to represent units of things. They can be objects or measurements, and "1" is the initial and most relatable object count or measurement. Counting from zero to one is like going from nothing to something - like the Big Bang.

There are infinities that exist between numbers(Zenos' Paradox) where in an abstract sense there can exist a virtually infinite amount of subdivisions: approaching zero, the micro of the macro, or zooming the Mandelbrot Set, and of course this works both ways - virtual spatial infinity - an expanding universe(the macrocosm). This appears figuratively as a golden ratio of the spiral. One arm approaches the center(zero), while the other approaches infinity; neither ever actually arriving at an extreme subjectively speaking.

I remember when digital SD first came out it felt like it wasn't real. Analog felt more 'real' whereas digital felt more like a reproduction; an artistic rendition, although it did improve much with time.

Tesla thought that 3, 6, and 9 were very important numbers. If you multiply any other number of creation by 3, 6, or 9 and add the resulting numbers(where applicable)referred as theosophic addition, the results are always 3, 6, or 9: 3x1=3, 3x2=6, 3x4=12(1+2=3), 3x5=15(1+5=6)...; 6x1=6, 6x2=12(1+2=3), 6x3=18(1+8=9)...; 9x1=9, 9x2=18(1+8=9), 9x3=27(2+7=9)...


Transposition and the Number 9

Here's another one: take the difference of any number and its transposition; the result will be evenly divisible by nine. 10, 01, 10-1=9(9/9=1); 11, 11, 11-11=0(0/9=0); 12, 21, 21-12=9(9/9=1); 13, 31, 31-13=18(18/9=2); 14, 41, 41-14=27(27/9=3); 15, 51, 51-15=36(36/9=4)...; solution set: 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...

Now try with three digits: 100, 001, 100-1=99(99/9=11); 101,110, 110-101=9(9/9=1); 102, 201, 201-102=99(99/9=11)...

Four digits: 1234, 4321, 4321-1234=3087(3087/9=343)...

Five digits...

...

The Sun and the Moon : 6 : 9

From the Tree of Life: when the number 6(the Sun) is inverted it becomes 9(the Moon) which runs parallel with the day being inverted to become the night or vice versa.

[Byrd]

Zero isn't divisible by 9.  Zero isn't divisible.

We use base ten because we have 10 fingers.

[CCoburn]

Zero isn't divisible by 9. 

That's why it's equal to zero, or undefined. I just stuck that in there and kept going. Division of nothing is undefined. You can't divide something that doesn't exist.

[Maxmars]

That's why it's equal to zero, or undefined. I just stuck that in there and kept going. Division of nothing is undefined. You can't divide something that doesn't exist.

I think it's because 'zero' (0) is not a number, it's a concept.

[CCoburn]

I think it's because 'zero' (0) is not a number, it's a concept.

Exactly. It's negation, and in a cosmological setting it isn't explicitly defined. I think something magical is going on with the cosmos throughout eternity that can't be reasonably defined.

[CCoburn]

Nothing(Zero) : God(One) : Ever-Flowing-Insanity


The method of the god anomaly(1) is purely academic. It makes no difference whether it is continuously eternal or periodic. A periodic god anomaly attempts to solve the problem of infinite regression while simultaneously tossing a salad of something(1) and nothing(0) - don't forget the croutons.

While on the other hand some go the eternal route and surmise that this God governs linear time in a way that transcends conventional logic and reason and infinite regression as well as time requiring a starting point from which to proceed forward – all of these have been reconciled/formulated via some transcendental reasoning within the mind of this god.

Not much of the above making any sense from the perspective of a universe created by such a god, which ultimately results in the conclusion that not all truths follow conventional laws of logic and reason.

So that's how that particular inquiry ends, for what it's worth. 

The nine numbers are supposed to be attributes of God, so one would be unity and with the initial progression gender would be formulated as 2: a masculine positive, and 3: a feminine negative. Three is also the association for the supernal expansion of spacetime which is mirrored as the 9 month expansion of the womb following conception.

In a way this is like fractals. You have the cosmos and these things happening on a massive scale, and then you have a similar sequence of events on a smaller scale, so it's these cosmological "small scale" events that you can observe that give insight to what is happening on an unobservable larger scale since the universe is all about fractals and pattern repetition.

[Maxmars]

But, stepping into the fray, perilous though that may be...

Everything, nothing... nothing everything... it's a quaint dance, isn't it?
If everything comes from nothing, and all things hail from the void (zero)... does then everything "return" to nothing?

And what is the motive force, the principle of providence, the oomph, behind the push?

Within the concept of 'nothing' (zero) is a framework of 'everything'...
or is it that within the concept of 'everything,' is the framework of 'nothing?'

This venture to understand seems akin to staring directly into the light, while looking at nothing,
or perhaps peering into a darkness in which there is 'nothing' to look at. let alone see.

There are unknown principles at play... perspectives we do not observe in the universe, things we cannot see...

Math is a language.  All languages have limitations based upon the application of intent against its structure.
But not because of light or dark... but because we simply 'can not' see - even when they are there.


(apologies is this isn't an answer... but then, I don't have an answer... just more questions.)

[CCoburn]

If everything comes from nothing, and all things hail from the void (zero)... does then everything "return" to nothing?

In this particular scenario it would appear so, but there really isn't an explicit definition for "nothing" other than that it is an existential state, condition, or parameter that precedes the spatial dimensions from within an eternal loop or algorithm.

There are a few reasons why this "nothing" terminology would be incorporated into a cosmological theory of everything:

1. Given a single iteration of this 'expanding model' universe (in theory) the expansion would be reversed to arrive at a prior state from where the "expansion" initiated in the first place – called "nothing" to indicate that it does not occupy any type of spatial existence.

2. In an attempt to resolve the problem of infinite regression presuming that it actually requires any "resolving", but even if a spacetime continuum is regressed to a prior state of nothingness and halts there from within an eternal construct, the eternal construct itself dictates that there is STILL an eternal sequence of events, but only of a different manner, so has anything ultimately been resolved? Yes and no.

3. The problem of infinite space. This is no longer a mystery as its polar opposite now becomes the default state. Space is not a given but is created and expands into this "nothing". There is no space beyond or outside of our universal space – there literally is absolutely "nothing".

4. Occams' razor and the law of parsimony. Exclusion of infinite space and emergence from "nothing" is one of the simplest explanations, but at the same time also one of the most bizarre as well.