It’s impossible to believe in nothing because then nothing is to be believed
Dr. David Medved, the noted physicist from Jerusalem recently offered a fascinating postulate that is particularly intriguing to those who are open to the fact that the Torah (Jewish Bible) and science are not mutually exclusive. He quoted from Genesis, the second day of creation and spoke of the firmament (canopy) that G-d created to separate the waters above [the firmament] and the waters below, “And He called this firmament ‘Heaven.’” Dr. Medved’s fascinating interpretation was that the firmament might well be the impenetrable dividing line between matter and antimatter, or the positive universe and its negative opposite. To take this one step further, since this “dividing line” is the Heavens or supernal realms then the spiritual worlds manifest themselves in two opposite physical realities, one being the mirror image of the other, so to speak.
Hence, I have come out in support of Dr. Medved’s theory, because it stands to reason that since the construct of our universe is a web of dichotomy in that for each of its parts, energies, particles, sub particles and intellectual concepts there is an exact opposite, the entire universe, as one unified entity must also have its opposite in order to exist. There must additionally be this impenetrable divide because if the negative and positive worlds met they would annihilate each other. Thus we have the line; a one dimensional geometric shape of infinite length in two opposite directions and of zero width. Consequently, we have a knowable manifestation of the concept of Yesh M’Ayin (something from nothing representing G-d’s creative power). What’s more the line connects an infinite number of points that have zero dimensions. Thus with the contemplation of shapes, i.e. points and lines as the dividers in the world of opposites, we can take on a clearer understanding of the process of free will.
We are always dealing with an unseen truth that governs our lives and exists beyond or capacity to notice.
The classic definition of a line segment being “the shortest distance between two points” tells us that the beginning of any line segment is an object with no volume, area, width or length, which defines an exact location in space. Therefore, that which cannot be measured is the start of everything measurable. Additionally, notwithstanding that a line is straight by definition, there is no such thing as a straight line because, according to Einstein et al, space is curved. But when we look we only “see” the straight line segments and there are innumerable mathematical formulas and theorems centered on the relationship between them in how they intersect or how they remain apart from each other; all the while we are really working with the curved sections of one very large loop. So the straight line is, in the ultimate reality, an arc. Accordingly, we must conclude that we are always dealing with an unseen truth that governs our lives and exists beyond our capacity to notice. Most of us refer to this unseen truth as “G-d”.
To continue, the line is the boundary that sets limitations, defines the end of one side of an area and separates two opposing sides. It is the contraction of infinity to the finite. It is the formation of something from nothing because a line segment and its endpoints have no substance; not even energy. Nonetheless it is a part of reality and if you cross over you are on the other side. Sometimes you can go back but don’t want to, sometimes you wish you could but can’t and sometimes you can bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball until some one close to you screams, “I wish you’d make up your mind already!”
Finally, this concept applies also to morality and ethics; i.e. the line of demarcation between right and wrong or good and evil. Although some would argue that such lines are often fuzzy and that there are gray areas of controversy, the fact remains that there are truly two opposing sides to every issue and every decision is an answer to the question, “Should I or shouldn’t I?”
Then, of course, there is the underlying motive for choosing to do or not do anything; which can be for self gratification, or to help someone you know, someone you don’t know, the community in which you live or all of humanity. Sometimes however, self gratification is the right motivation and other times it leads to trouble for the short sighted. The great Hillel said about two thousand years ago, “If I am not for me who will be and if am only for me, what am I?” Thus, we even have choice between the reasons why we choose what we do.
In summary, what is choice? You most probably will answer that it is to engage in the process of selection in the exercise of one’s free will. Everything, whether physical or spiritual, object or idea; tangible or intangible has its opposite and there is an impenetrable line of demarcation between them because otherwise they would cancel each other out. But each concept, perception or entity is inextricably connected to its counterpart as the mirror image of the other and are therefore interdependent for existence. Even “opposite” has its opposite which is “same” and the opposite of same is opposite. Without “same” there would be no opposite and without “opposite” nothing would be the same and everything would be the same as nothing. By the same token, there would be no “good” without “evil” and vice versa. Although it may seem good to be without evil, good could not exist by itself because we can’t know what “good” is without it’s opposite and we would have no free will. Hence, the sole purpose of this bipolar construct is for us to have the opportunity to choose good over evil. So it is clear that there is a line of demarcation dividing everything from it’s converse, but it’s not always clear where it’s located when we want to take a stand on one side or the other; hence the so called “gray area”.
However, there is a way to develop a specific thinking process in making the right choices that will lead only to joy and success, which, as mentioned earlier, is nothing more than answering the universal question, “Should or shouldn’t I?” That process really becomes an internal debate between instant gratifications versus long term benefits. Every action produces a responsive feeling and we naturally want to choose that which makes us feel pleasure rather than pain, or a sense of accomplishment rather frustration. Hence, in any decision there is only one line and two sides and you must choose one or the other and the key to making a successful choice is in analyzing the probable onslaught of unintended consequences, which boils down to finding where that line of demarcation is located. This is the integral part of the free will process.