Well, the number 2 continues to fascinate me. Especially when we consider the bit. I feel that the bit is almost the center of the information age. Yes or no. On or off. 1 or 0. Add them up.

Also the Continuum Hypothesis relies on the number two. Because any member of a set either is or is not a member of a subset within that set. Are you in or out? Are you with us or against us? Can we break it down more than that? Fuzzy logic is an increase of complexity. A spectrum implies a multitude of states. 2 is the minimum plurality. A dimension has two directional possibilities. Left or Right. Up or Down. True or False. Also we all have two parents.

I don't remember where I read this but some information theorist made a distinction between information and command. Information implies something new whereas a command especially if followed without question does not constitute information. So 2 - this is Yes, that is No and This is In that is Out can be seen as commands rather than information. If the Yes/no is an answer to a question i.e. if it is something that is revealed then it qualifies as information. The bit is the simplest answer Yes or No but if it is not an answer, if it does not come from outside of the system then it can only be a command. So the bit is "almost the center of the information age" but I want to say not quite.

2 is a question - the seeking of information but is not information in and of itself. I suppose 3 is the answer. 3 is information.

:bigsmile:

If we have one dimension (like length, height, width, magnitude), we always also have 2 directional possibilities within this dimension.

We have 6 directions in three dimensional space, for instance. Our number line (excluding just now the complex plane) is one-dimensional, and therefore bi-directional. Numbers are bigger or smaller, negative or positive.

Also, and perhaps just as interesting, we have the notion of power sets.
There are 2 to the power of set-members power sets.
Every member of a set can either be or not be a member of a subset. And this is the source of the 2.

The word doubt comes from the word for 2. Philosophy is full of dualisms. Thought itself, considered as distinction, is the imposition of dualism. Is this why our concepts of Being and Totality are so paradoxical, because thought as distinction implies an "other"? Must all attempts at monism incorporate negation or simply founder? How does duality tied into negative theology, negative ontology? N of Cusa presented God as the union of opposites. He tries the smash the 2 into a 1.

Here's a strange quote.
TLP

It might be too poetic for some, but can we imagine a dimension as a matrix (always dual/bifurcated) on which singular/"male" number exists? And can they exist apart? Of course we can combine dimensions, and end up with 3-dimensional coordinate systems, but the essence remains. Is this why Mary and Jesus are so often painted together? Even numbers have been called feminine numbers.

Don't mistake this symbolic dot-connecting for mysticism. I suspect that logic has often been mistaken for mysticism, and that the beauty of truth has been held against it, just as metaphor is often turned into superstition.

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the post, but I was curious about your encounters with Derrida, if you have come in contact with him.

He is quite certain that opposites do not exist in themselves, but all things exist somewhere in between both. To him, nothing is ever absolute, and language is an attempt to try to make these many abstractions concrete. It is essentially an impossible task that can never be completed, hence the frustration so many people get when they discover they can't have complete reign over reality.

He describes all aspects of a thing as having traces of the two polar opposites within it. This seems very similar to many Eastern religions.