This includes the progression of our cultural evolution, which in principle should be comparable to our biological evolution. The 2012 Japanese Nobel Laureate, Shinya Yamanaka, has shown that development seemingly can run backward using so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), meaning that earlier hidden developmental steps may be a useful new starting point. In nature, such developments are initiated either by random events or under the pressure of momentarily altered conditions. Some may only be useful in the short term and must be withdrawn under other circumstances. So, obviously, this realization is more general or perhaps even completely universal. Does it not sound familiar that we sometimes have to row back ourselves?
As important precursors of the natural sciences, which could be considered as a tactically conceivable recourse, religions and arts can be considered. These different disciplines differ fundamentally in their categories of evaluation. On the whole, we can conceptualize the areas covered by these as humanistic dimensions. Accordingly, religions preferably judge in the moral sense as "good" or "bad". Accordingly, the arts preferentially decide in the aesthetic sense between "authentic" or "fake" (not just "beautiful" or "ugly"). Natural sciences correspondingly are preferentially based on logical decisions between "true" or "false", which are linked to the concept of consistency.
These statements, in particular the conspicuous use of the word "preferentially", remained initially unquestioned. Take as an example "good" or "bad". A person or a matter was in the earlier understanding either completely good or completely bad, which was underlined by the coarse symbolization of angel and devil. Today we see this as black and white painting. Just as gray and even bright colors can exist between white and black, we accept similar moral nuances. Today common phrases such as "Nobody is perfect" or "Everybody is a little angel and a little devil" illustrate this. But also the logical intermediate word "or" loses its absolute character and can be multi-valued in the sense of modern fuzzy logic shifting towards greater complexity.
If we want to understand this in the context of space and time, boundaries must limit our realm of understanding, providing literally a framework. This means that only a finite number and thus discrete values can exist, even if they are perhaps indistinguishably close to each other. But these values form a continuum. On the other hand, if we accept a fractal view, the situation is completely different. There can be an infinite number of values. But at transition points between generations there have to be singularities that can be understood as being either positive or negative (for example: birth and death, creation and apocalypse, big bang and black hole). Therefore continuity does not exist here.
Fractal representation allows a seamless transition between ordered and chaotic states without any valuation, while purely logical and purely statistical descriptions are quasi-separate worlds in which there is no gliding transition between a man-made construction and a river, although for example under natural conditions the physical form of river banks obviously is important. Such transition between order and chaos has in the human domain the character of a dimension between categories in the same sense as the transition from "good" to "bad" in moral or religious sentiment, as well as between "authentic" and "fake" in aesthetic or artistic conception, and like between "true" and "false" in analytical or scientific thinking.
While the latter operates in four dimensions of space-time coordinates, we can accordingly accept as basis the four above-mentioned categories here consciously designated as being dual pairs with the positively understood qualities of goodness, beauty, consistency and order or with the respective negatively understood opposite qualities evil, ugliness, decay and chaos.
Growth and development
Growth thus arises from classical thinking and involves continuity and border respect, while development can be assigned to fractal representations and is characterized by singularities and border crossing. The fractal singularities are equivalent to the classical borders, whereas the fractal border crossing finds its equivalent in the continuous but well-controlled permeability of, for example, biological membranes and skin. This fractal way of thinking opens up completely new possibilities, which have probably not yet developed very much, but should certainly be taken into account in the current discussion about tight political borders.
Growth is represented in classical algebra by so-called power series of developments, which are a sum of functions with increasing powers. They thereby yield higher functions such as the exponential function. The latter plays a central role in the description of natural growth.
Accordingly, we may ask what could correspond to these power series in fractal description. The linear formulas by Julia (1925) show the importance of branching for development. Mandelbrot (1975) introduced quadratic terms in mathematical expressions describing fractals. The simplest one of such formulas yields two-dimensional geometrical representations of branching buds, for example the well-known Mandelbrot set, which today can be viewed on the Internet statically and in dynamic development from generation to generation.
The basic figure described by this Mandelbrot set is the heart-shaped so-called cardoid whose interior remains mathematically inaccessible, both in static representation, showing the so-called start function, as well as in the dynamic evolution from generation to generation. The interior is usually shown in black, reminiscent of a black hole in astronomy or of the inaccessible interior of elementary particles, perhaps not by coincidence. It is better not to be reminded of medieval paintings of the hell, which is often depicted in black.
With the introduction of the quadratic term, it has become possible to apply those fractals to describe natural surfaces by using only an astonishingly low number of coefficients, measured by the number of pixels otherwise required to depict images, for example, on the screen of a modern electronic device. By natural surfaces are meant, for example, landscapes or clouds, but also faces. But individual pixels necessarily fail to be shown in the fractal representation.
The transition to fractal representation thus implies the renunciation of strict logic typical of Western culture in favor of much faster reception of complex states, which tend to characterize Far Eastern culture. India and Iran are intermediate borderlands in this view. The conceptually clear and mathematically justifiable distinction described above shows that development and growth can be understood as dual, that is, different but related processes.
Description by power series
Not only two-dimensional surfaces, but also three-dimensional structures should also be able to be grasped, which requires the introduction of quadratic as well as terms of the third power into the fractal formulas. The development of spherical or ellipsoidal bodies requires the inclusion of such a term. Likewise, the idea of stars and elementary particles comes up. In principle, an infinite number of higher powers could be included. The term of a fourth-order potency has already been associated with a superfluid state inside those black holes.
Since no strict mathematical reasoning is possible at the moment, playing with hypotheses heuristically seems justifiable and should not immediately be dismissed as bad speculation. The state of a natural development in each following generation should also be such a mathematical power series derived from the state in the preceding generation. This generally would be a sum of terms with increasing powers starting with a constant. The latter could contain the essential constants of nature and basic effects and thus explain or at least describe the ubiquity of the laws of nature.
The first-order member must reproduce simple forking and thus energy dissipation, which is certainly an important part of any development.
The subsequent question of selection in each development can only be clarified with a second-order term describing surfaces capable of division. It should be noted that also energy is always represented by a quadratic expression. We should keep in mind the Maxwell's equations.
Directed selection and only thereby living organisms can be represented with a third order term as minimal requirement, which can be described as an important prerequisite for receptors on curved surfaces, for example. The emergence on the one hand of space and time, on the other hand of particles initially considered as mass-less (photons, neutrinos) and radiations would possibly require a term of at least the fourth order.
The emergence of forces described in a good approximation in space and time by the standard model of the theory of elementary particles has been extensively discussed including the addition of terms of even higher order, which give good fits. But nevertheless this still seems to be speculative. It may have to do with trying to connect the descriptions of elementary particles and black holes ,
Development would thus also be understood as a sum of power terms, in principle as inverse to any growth. However, this understanding essentially implies that basically only recursive methods are available, whereby all rational understanding of the world might be restricted in last consequence.
At the moment the idea seems to be interesting, to search for the hitherto unknown starting function by starting from a fractal representation already developed over many generations. This means a limitation to recursive procedures and thus the acceptance of a principal limitation of possibilities for knowledge at least by this method. The interior of the start function remains inaccessible anyway. This interior, however, is in everyday language birth and death, creation and apocalypse, or big bangs and black holes, all of which remain unsearchable within the respective system. In principle, it is always a hen-egg problem, which can only be examined from outside.
In the area of life, and especially in the humanistic sphere, it seems to make sense to focus especially on a clear conceptual distinction between development and growth. This kind of asking is closely linked, but not identical with similar questions about evolution and structure formation. The comparison of the two ways of investigation may lead us to simplified new insights, which above all could make it easier for us to understand connections between the completely different views of religion, art, humanities and the natural sciences.
A world view avoidingt extremism seems to be important. In general, it is about finding values between extreme positions. Humanistic enlightenment means a not necessarily harmless conscious search for them. In human life as well as in the whole of nature, four dimensions determined by two categories considered as extreme positions associated to the four main body parts appear to be a fairly consistent basis, namely good and bad as accepted in all religions (morality), authentic and fake as in artistic activities (also concerning beauty), as well as true and false in modern scientific thinking (consistency). In addition, the ideas of the new fractal concepts point to the importance of the area between order and chaos, which is fully apparent in practical life. For example, in societies "law and order" on one extreme side and anarchy on the other describe such extreme positions.
The individual and the communal task in life is thus a deliberate optimizing search for positions between the eight extremes mentioned, which reminds of corresponding ideas in Buddhism or even comes close to them with the traditionally recommended Middle Way, but is not simply identical with the latter, which can not be seen as completely free of extreme demands. Extreme demands, however, are called fundamentalism in common usage and seem to be very questionable in all established religions.
The equal significance of the spheres corresponding to the different human body parts should certainly be emphasized, namely head, upper body, abdomen and extremities, ie: intelligence and perception, feelings and sympathy, sex and power, as well as activities and mobility. Everywhere one dualism seems to haunt another one, which could be understood similar to Hegel’s dialectics. Dualism could correspond to a dialectical view, and inversely dialectics now could find a counterpart in dualism. The most important point, however, might be the insight that at key points in our search for understanding, we can only proceed by recursive procedures, beyond whose borders principally unrecognizable areas remain inaccessible. But this method should make it easier to venture into completely new and perhaps very useful areas beyond a hitherto mostly analytically driven philosophy, namely its obvious counterpart, a synthetic philosophy with a stronger focus on practicality accepting rationally less understandable terms.
Belief and religion have become questionable because our changing world requires faster customization. But the belief remains that the principles of nature are essentially simple. Is there a way that simply, beautifully, and with respect for our inner and outer lives, continues to lead us? Philosophy would be an option, but for most people it seemed to have become a complicated science. A populist, illicitly simplistic philosophy would be just as suspect. The solution could now bring a modern way with a new sense of modernity that does not simply mean something pertaining to the recent past, but rather own dynamic decision, which is not restricted to fixed points.
So we are less supplied by major centers of faith, but use our own decision cells not only in the head, but maybe even everywhere in us and can thus live both fitter and more frugal, or more drastically less exploitable and safer in less dependence.
The key to access could be to combine logical description and holistic understanding. If we take the two most significant results of physics a century or so ago and now use them as the basis of such a philosophy, we could possibly achieve a much simpler form of presentation. Energy and mass can be converted into each other according to the Einstein formula (1905). However, waves and particles have a dual nature, as shown by de Broglie (1925). Mass and energy and also particles and waves mean practically the same thing. If we accept the dual existence of mass and energy as the axiomatic basis in the natural philosophy from which we may proceed, we avoid the theme of creation and, moreover, do not immediately have to refer to space and time, which can not be defined without mass and energy.
Thus, not only do we have to accept the Einstein formula as the result of theoretical calculations, but we can now also use it as the starting point of new ideas. This should allow considerable simplification in the presentation, which could already be quite useful for teaching in school lessons.
Four cultural areas
We can regard religion, art, the humanities and natural sciences as the four most important areas in which the transition from the given nature to our influence-able life is reflected in the form of so-called culture.
Today we have arrived at a point where we seem to know and understand better what these four reasonably well-defined areas involve than we can more generally say about nature, life and culture. But to delineate the latter, it is certainly not enough to refer to some of these four areas separately, but we must look at them together, and with them the interdependencies and interactions between them. So this can not be a subject-specific task, which certainly gives a possible justification for giving philosophy a greater role again, after it had been pushed back by the natural sciences, above all because of the lack of experiments.
But since each of the four areas contains a multitude of aspects, it seemed unrealistic to want to find a common denominator for them in philosophy. In addition, this was made more difficult by the fact that the usual philosophy was mostly limited to a purely rational procedure, whereas in those four areas this was originally not the case, but was more and more enforced in today's sciences, for example by a contempt for intuition and condemnation of all speculation even when motivated by heuristics. It therefore seems that not only the relationship between nature, life and culture needs to be further questioned, but also, if possible, the essence of philosophy itself. But that may possibly even lead us to a better understanding of what mankind actually is and can do.
Living in Thailand for many years has made it very clear how much we as Europeans limit ourselves to the rational part of life. To think logically has a much higher priority for us, so that we often completely unconsciously keep away from holistic areas and thus, according to subjective impression of the author, avoid important experiences that have the character of experiments. At the same time, in many Far Eastern countries, philosophical questions can often be found in many points that are rather unexpected for Europeans. It must be astonishing to note that there is no word in their languages for philosophy and culture at all. These are circumscribed as temple service. Should we just take note of such differences or better challenge our own position? The decision in favor of the latter meant not only to see the love of wisdom in philosophy, as in the European tradition, but to ask if something else had to be done to penetrate new areas. To bring up something different - is not that the literal meaning of the word "alternative"? Thus, an alternative philosophy was called into action, which should more completely than traditionally cover as many as possible areas of life, but without falling into esotericism, creeds, fantasies or populism.
In each of the four areas mentioned above one can notice a predominantly emphasized human aspect. Religiosity emphasizes morality, so very much the conflict between righteousness and enforcement. Art seeks balance (harmony) between genuineness and fake to a similar extent, humanities are strongly confronted with the interpretation of the material world between being (ontology) and development, and natural sciences increasingly encounter complexity in the conflict between logical exact search for truth and statistical “fuzzy” holism.
Four prominent categories can thus be stated without demanding unambiguousness. The question arises as to whether other potentially selectable categories can in principle be deduced from these four, which may have been chosen with some arbitrariness. From the natural sciences, especially mechanics, the description in four dimensions is well known, namely with imaginary time and three spatial dimensions. But man is part of nature and thus should also be describable in principle with four dimensions.
The four areas mentioned above, which roughly outline what we could understand by culture, all have a very important task in establishing relationships between nature originally understood as unchanging (static) and now increasingly changing (dynamic) human life. However, this separation between initially purely static conceived nature and more dynamically interpreted life is relativized by our better understanding of the meaning of complexity today.
Low complexity is a prerequisite for logic. This, in turn, is closely linked to rationality. The basic links in it can be mathematically reduced to four logical operators. High complexity, on the other hand, is to a large extent practically synonymous with life processes. In this context, however, life is not just understood as human life, or perhaps even that of higher animals, but encompasses a much wider and probably unlimited range. Today we can also speak of life far away from the human sphere, for example in molecular or stellar processes, which also continue regeneratively. This view causes us more than ever before to ask questions about what is specifically human.
Myths have probably initiated this debate and can be seen in the humanities primarily as an early human confrontation between the material and the spiritual world. In the last past centuries, this finally culminated in dialectic between materialism and idealism. In scientific terms, they can be understood essentially as a description of what is called life, without immediately being able to define what it really is. The confrontation or interaction between the outer and inner worlds (nature and psyche), which Homer called the Janus-headedness of divine wisdom, can find a correspondence in the modern concept of duality. Between the notions of duality and dialectics, a reference can be seen by saying that interaction between dual states takes place, as does the dispute between dialectical positions.
Classical philosophy is limited in this respect largely to rational dispute between cognition and processing, which can also be understood dialectically or by dual interpretation. The concept of dispute finds a parallel in the scientific term interaction. Rationality can at leasr to a large extent be understood as a child of archaic myths and was increasingly attributed to the head, as it were.
However, to the other human body parts of the upper body, abdomen and extremities, dual conceptual pairs can also be associated additionally in a well-justifiable approximation, namely feeling and vitality, sexuality and power, as well as moving around and activities.
In rational philosophy, the parts of life that are perceived as animalistic are usually omitted. The associated taboo makes a clear separability of static and dynamic contributions (states and processes) easier or just possible.
Duality can thus be stated twice in different forms, first within the individual dominant cultural areas and then also with respect to our body parts, which would mean a total of four-dimensionality in each case. Since only three dimensions can be real, Plato came already with ingenuity to the sensation of the imaginary as a shadow world.
Dualities are formed as in dialectics from a pair of opposing but related assumptions of an analysis, to which, however, additional assumptions, initially accepted as secondary, are added.
Dualities, as in dialectics, are formed from a pair of opposing but related assumptions of analysis, to which, however, additional assumptions, initially often accepted as secondary, are added.
Examples can be very different. We can imagine left and right with a scale, zero and one with calculation rules, energy and mass with the Einstein formula, existence and development under influence of actions, and much more such dualities.
In principle, each of the two assumptions could be decomposed into two or more subclasses. This is the basis for general cladistics, especially those first observed in biology. The branches seem to be initially equivalent. There results an approximate, but not strictly symmetrical "family tree".
In quantum physics, however, it has been shown that it may well be that only one branch of the respective arguments can split into three bifurcations, while the other branch remains inert. The latter could be regarded as the primary
argument, and in some cases it is designated as imaginary.
The assumption first made known using this rational linguistic concept was the notion of an imaginary time here with intention mentioned as first one, and of a three-dimensionally splitting up real space. This not only allowed to describe the static states of the initial mechanics, but also the following ideas about steady dynamic processes such as vibrations.
Spectral analysis of atomic physics showed that a spectral line can split into three lines by additional effects (spin). The additional assumption was given in a systematic description by a further quantum number for the spin, which, as soon was shown and only should be noted here, could also have a half-integer value. With the addition of additional quantum numbers, further observed splits of spectral lines could be detected, and the broadening of these lines allowed conclusions to be drawn about additional properties, in particular the speed. Not all lines were sharp, but some widened (fuzzy). That this may be a general property of theories concerning dual arguments under influence of side effects has only recently become clear and is probably consistent with assumptions for fuzzy logic.
Natural development arises in principle through splitting up of initial elements and a following selection of the better adapted one. These elements can be both communicative arguments and physical entities, that is to say in humanities speech of idealistic or of material kind. First, this kind of system was used in biological evolution as a guiding idea. All plants should therefore be derived from a primeval plant, and similarly all animals, only hesitatingly including humans, from a primitive animal. Thereafter, the search was thought to go on for a primordial creature, from which all plants and animals descended together, and then for molecular units, which led to the formation of something alive, and finally for organic basic substances, which could have served as starting materials for these by forming kind of enzymes.
Calculations of the speed at which such developments are statistically expected to happen soon showed that they could not have occurred during the periods available on Earth. Today, there are increasing signs that important building blocks must have come to Earth with meteorites or meteors from space.
Systematics is thus generally built up in form of a hierarchical pyramid headed by leading elements, that is, either influences or physical units. These elements represent the axiomatic which can or must be assumed. But these can not or do not have to be proven, but rather represent a fundamentalist ensemble that can be chosen in one way or another and must prove itself both theoretically and practically.
Theory and practice can also be understood as a dual pair and are subject to the same criteria. It is important what the starting elements are and what additional elements are added by higher complexity to finally introduce the necessary dynamics into the initial statics. From a humanistic point of view, states therefore become processes.
Not only biological evolution, but also the development of law and, more recently, the search engines of the Internet are further examples of such hierarchical developments for which an axiomatic is desired. Already the division of the folders in a computer or the arrangement of bookmarks for the Internet in groups and subgroups with further branches give examples of the quasi ubiquitous desire for such cladistics with an axiomatics at the top.
In the description of nature, however, it has been found that a four-dimensional description with one imaginary and three real dimensions is largely applicable and sufficient, namely, first, through the space-time system of modern physics.
Since living beings, and especially humans, are part of nature, it must be assumed for reasons of consistency that human areas, especially those of culture, must also consist of categories considered to have one imaginary and three to be real, which “span up” dimensions. The imaginary part would be conceived as an initial concept, ie archaic concepts of states which may already exist in animals and which still contain a static understanding. As a result, splitting up has created process-related areas that contain strong personal development, ie, specifically, art, the humanities and natural sciences. At first this sounds very speculative, but it could be confirmed rather quickly and in many ways through consistency checks and consistent conclusions.
In addition, however, the human body that has emerged from biological evolution seems to have a corresponding division into an original "imaginary" part in the form of the abdomen, which in lower animals can maintain a life cycle with metabolism and multiplication in principle as with unicellulars. One after the other, limbs (in the case of unicellular organisms such as flagella), then a head, and finally an upper body with a separate area for energy supply were created (heart and lungs).
Four-dimensionality, therefore, generally seems to be an important moment in all naturally occurring systematics. This must include four-dimensional axiomatics at the top of these cladistics.
The introduction of axiomatics initially means a purely rational approach. Mathematical axiomatics for the description of nature formalizes dual interaction between operators (quantifiers and mathematical links). However, axiomatics can be understood more generally as a child of alternative philosophy if initially no limitation only to thinking and perception takes place. When limited to logic, four quantors (measurable quantities) and four logical operators are required. Since only three of them can be real (for example, three spatial dimensions), the fourth operator has to be imaginary. Logically, that is, with low complexity, only the succession of generations is available as imaginary quantor, while holistically, that is, with high complexity, this can be either time or creation or development. While logically negation is the only imaginary operator, holistically the second law of thermodynamics can assume this role.
Alternatively, it can be said that being develops, or instead that development just is (has a being). The relationship between being and development first appeared to be a dual myth. However, in modern terms, this can be understood as interaction between matter and fields, ie mass and energy (Einstein formula).
In principle, there must be a transition between logic and holistic in kind of a dimension, which could be continuous. At higher complexity, the logic collapses, eventually resulting in fuzzy points. Consequently, one is urged to gradually approach a limit at the edge of the range, that is to say something unknown, such as e.g. a higher (initially not yet defined) order. The simplest case is leaving linear systems when introducing quadratic terms. If the earth is no longer understood as a flat disk, then quadratic terms can be added, first of all meaning circles.
Recursion as a cyclical approach, however, does not have to result in circles, following a common misunderstanding, but can come up as a spiral or ellipse approching something unknown (similar to the orbits of planets of a star). However, causing disturbances can be possible only if the system is incomplete (at least partially open). Such kind of recursion goes beyond logic, which thus more generally can be seen as a at least patially open system, to which as its exterior holistic can be attributed. Therefore, logic and holistic can be understood in a dual way. In alternative philosophy it might be allowed, though not logically justifiable, to use wisdom as a generic term for logic and holistic together.
Is all life just a game? This sentence seems to be highly philosophical, because every single word in it can be questioned in many ways, and it also leads, “within it and outside of it”, to alternative ways to penetrate into secrets that curious life researchers may tempted to proceed in many respects. Should we perhaps first clarify the vocabulary, then look at the rules, and finally orient ourselves to what was before it or perhaps follows from that? Or is it just about here and now?
The majority of people care little about what is behind the rules of a game or simply of life. The rules seem to be predetermined, so they can not be changed anyway. So it might look like an unnecessary pastime to care about it. The rules seem extremely complicated and are therefore left as food to the caste of priests and professors.
But the assumption that it is all about brains, for example, has not yet prevailed in ravens. They arrogantly consider themselves the most intelligent ones of all birds, and feel equally superior to the big condors and small hummingbirds, and especially to those who can not fly at all.
So the rules have something to do with intelligence, but not just brains. Is it all about speed? Certainly the ravens are able to show fast pace. But hardly anyone thinks or feels what they are doing at night. They hide, are lazy and just shag, which is very important. But they are also artists, yes, flying artists.
Do the ravens, like the Buddha, simply search for a middle way between being highly mobile or just lazy, and between being artists or just “flying”? Similarly they use communication to seek compromises between closer and more distant places for their livelihood, and material preferences between delicious food and, if necessary, even what people dubiously call carrion. Whether these other bipeds also have a comparably good memory and antibody system?
Adaptability is of utmost importance. Does this not contradict fixed rules in a game? All that remains is to conclude that it is about the development of rules for rules, once again about a metasystem, a system that develops itself.
Fixed rules such as in a game of chess are therefore considered less suitable for life. Computer games, on the other hand, can be continuously developed. They adapt to the market. Is the market something like life?
Programmers know that an environment needs to be defined first and then follow the rules. They meet with language rules, without which no rules can be established. However, philosophers often have already established language rules, talk about ontology, being, states, statics, and care relatively little about their environment. Only recently has the dependency on language become more apparent, and the other side of life, of the world, of God and man, is becoming fully aware that everything is flowing, developing, a process, and therefore dynamic.
Corresponding agreements concerning language now also emerge like Phoenix from the ashes for the rules themselves and could be enlightening, - notions like instinct, taboo, law, axiomatics. All are said to be interesting, but the real exciting question is the one about the next step. Is it self-organization, the essence of metaaxiomatics instantly called for help? Will we return to the alleged beginnings of nature and at the same time to its end? The raven apologizes for using the expression “at the same time”, which of course is imaginary.
Human understanding, both directed outward and what man himself is, can thus be understood by limiting it to four categories, which span four dimensions between dualities as extremes. In order for duality not simply to restore duality, asymmetry must come into play. As the simplest asymmetric assumption, a first dimension could still be assumed without the property of duality, which must be irreversible, which would be tantamount to the term "imaginary." Logically, it could, as already said, be interpreted as the negation, but holistically as the second law of thermodynamics, which can not be proved as a purely empirical proposition. The other three categories, or the dimensions they define, must necessarily be reversible and are called real.
Thus, in classical mathematical description, above all in the physics of mechanics, four-dimensionality imaginarily contains time (arising and passing away), but in reality three spatial coordinates (positive and negative). In the evolving nature, imaginarily, energy can be understood, while in reality three partially still unsupported forms of mass ("normal" matter, dark matter, and dark energy) can be understood. In life imaginary, instead of the physical time generations (birth and death) and real, instead of the physical space, three areas of life (daily life, introversion and extroversion) can be generally conceived. In culture, imaginary enforcement and, in real terms, the three areas of enterprise (economy), life (ecology) and control (rationality) could be subsumed.
Initially meant as an illustration, it is also possible to identify an imaginary and three real areas in essential basic components of our lives. Water contains superfluidity, which could perhaps contribute to the concept of the "imaginary," and the three quite understandable phases solid, liquid, and gaseous. The human body includes the imaginary area in the abdomen (love or attraction and sex or multiplication) and three real areas, namely in evolutionary order the extremities (movement and activities), the head (perception and processing) and the upper body (feeling and fitness). This may at first make an unscientific impression, but it probably contains thoughtful and justifiable ideas.