Yesterday we saw how the Zeta 2 zeros (i.e. the non-trivial roots of 1) provide the all important interface as between the two extreme interpretations of number.
So from one extreme, each number approaches an absolute formal identity (in quantitative terms).
Once again with respect to the number 2, this quantitative notion of "2" is composed of two independent units as constituent parts.
However at the other extreme, we have the qualitative notion of "2" (as twoness) composed of two interdependent units that ultimately approach total identity with each other as a pure energy state!
And whereas the quantitative recognition of "2" corresponds directly with rational recognition (of a conscious nature), the qualitative recognition of "2" (as twoness) corresponds by contrast directly with intuitive recognition (that is unconscious in origin).
Now strictly in experience, these two aspects of "2" are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other in a complementary dynamic interactive manner.
So the two roots of 1, thereby provide the harmonious interface as between the cardinal (quantitative) and ordinal (qualitative) notions number.of
Thus with respect to "2" in cardinal (quantitative) terms, we can identify two - relatively - independent units (i.e. 1 + 1); likewise with respect to "2" in ordinal (qualitative) terms, an identify two - relatively - interdependent units (i.e. 1st + 2nd).
With one of these roots, ordinal is necessarily reduced to cardinal meaning. What this means in effect is that the recognition of interdependence must necessarily start from the initial recognition of independent units (that are thereby interdependent with themselves)!
So the non-trivial root (as the Zeta 2 zero) where n = 2, is – 1. In dynamic interactive terms, this is given both an analytic and holistic interpretation.
Thus in analytic terms – 1 is considered as separate i.e. independent of + 1. However in holistic terms – 1 is now considered as fully related i.e. interdependent with + 1 (as an energy state).
Thus higher dimensions (where n > 2) reflect increasingly greater layers of interdependence (intuitively recognised) with respect to understanding.
Thus in dynamic interactive terms, understanding keeps switching in two-way fashion as between analytic and holistic aspects of interpretation.
Therefore dynamic interpretation is ultimately of an extremely subtle nature. We can start - in the Type 1 system - with the base natural numbers as quantitative and the dimensional exponent therefore of a - relatively - qualitative nature.
The Zeta 2 zeros are then properly given their holistic interpretation.
However, when reference frames switch, we can start with the base natural numbers as qualitative and the dimensional exponent as - relatively - quantitative in this context.
The Zeta 2 zeros are then properly given their analytic interpretation.
Thus in the dynamics of experience, both base and dimensional numbers (with respect to the Type 1 and Type 2 aspects of the number system) keep switching as between quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects.
Likewise the Zeta 2 zeros - which provide the crucial interface between both aspects - likewise keep switching as between their quantitative and qualitative aspects.
Thus the key overriding issue with respect to the individual natural numbers in this respect is that consistency - expressed through the Zeta 2 zeros - can be maintained as between both quantitative and qualitative interpretations.
And remarkably, this fundamental issue cannot even be recognised in conventional mathematical terms, as it is already based, in every context, on reduction of the qualitative to the quantitative aspect!