Opposites are Illusions

1. Most Opposites are False
2. Linear Scales (i.e., Hot and Cold)
3. Examples
   1. 'Rich' & 'Poor' aren't Opposites but Merely Comparisons
   2. Black and White are Not Real Opposites
   3. Physical Objects and Forces
   4. The Annihilation of Opposite Particles such as Electrons and Positrons
   5. Light and Dark
   6. Good and Evil are Always Subjective Opinions
   7. Gay and Straight
4. Conclusions

	Most Opposites are False

The major erroneous opposites are:

• Opposites as Assumptions - We "assume" that one thing is the opposite of another because it makes it easy to think about and easy to classify things.

• Opposites as Traditions - Lots of assumptions have become traditional parts of culture, so that questioning their truth is seen as ridiculous.

• Rhetorical Opposites - Many opposites are only English turns of phrase that have no logic behind them, but yet occasionally inform our schematics of reality. Such delusions and careless talk is suited to poetry and light hearted communication but should be guarded against in any serious attempt to understand reality.

• Anthropocentric Opposites are scales based around Human experience. We create arbitrary opposites and scientifically meaningless scales. They serve well for social communication and quick discussion but are ultimately relativistic, subjective, misleading and false.

• Numerical Scale Errors - When a scale has no upper value, or no lower value, it is impossible for logical opposites to exist. On the scale from "zero" to an undefined upper value, it is impossible to say what the opposite of "10" units or "4000" units is. Because there is no central pole, opposites become meaningless. Any scale that has no logical end is devoid of opposites. Likewise, any scale that has no logical center cannot have real opposites.

• Absolutism - The failure to realize that most opposites are relational is an error of absolutism. In a poor community the richest and poorest might consider themselves opposites, but compared to the wealth of a rich American, both would be considered poor. If we accept that most opposites are not absolute, but relative to a particular context, we admit that those opposites are rhetorical and subjective, not philosophically or scientifically meaningful.

It is hard to get a grip on the idea that opposites are illusory without delving into examples. So what follows are many commonly stated opposites plus descriptions of the underlying realities that falsify the idea of them as opposites.

	Linear Scales (i.e., Hot and Cold)

A limited scale starts at its lower value and moves past its centre to its upper value. So, the opposite of the upper value is the lowest value. We like to place most of our experience of things on scales. So, we would place "bliss" on one end of a scale and "nihilism" on the other and call them opposites. Less extreme opposites on the same scale would include "happiness" and "sadness". In the middle of such scales is a neutral value that has no opposite, "neither happy or sad". In nearly all scales, the "center" is arbitrary, defined by us Humans for no real reason other than that it makes it easy for us to communicate.

Hot and Cold
Based on the temperature of our blood inside or in surface capillaries, we say "hot" and "cold" are opposites. But this is arbitrary and sheds no useful light on the universe. They're not "opposites" as much as two different variations on an assumed central pole of temperature. We say the "opposite" of boiling hot is freezing cold. But there is no real opposite here. Both 0 degrees and 100 degrees are freezing cold relative to the temperature of other parts of the universe, and both are likewise best considered very hot compared to the endless coldness of space. We think there is a scale of hot to cold, with boiling being the opposite of freezing because it suits us, but it does not make it a useful fact about the reality of the universe: 0 degrees is not the opposite of 100 degrees: they're arbitrary values based on the properties of H₂O.

	Examples

'Rich' & 'Poor' aren't opposites but merely comparisons

What is the opposite of "lots of money"? Is it "no money"? The opposite of a rich person could be a person so poor that they have nothing. Numerically the opposite of a million is minus one million. Rich & Poor are only and relative rhetorical opposites. They only serve as "opposites" for the purposes of light-hearted or poetic speech.

If our rich man of £100000 is the opposite of a man with £0, what is the opposite of a man with £1000000 debt? Why, this man is also the opposite of the man with £1000000 pounds. What about a man with £2000000 pounds? His opposites must be men with both £0 and -£2000000. How can a value have two opposites? What is the opposite of a person with £0? We can see there is no defined opposite. Is it a person with £1000, £10,000 or £100,000 pounds? There is no logical reason to conclude that someone who is the opposite of our £0 person has any particular amount of money. It is logical nonsense to say that "rich" and "poor" are opposites, although sociologically it serves as a rhetorical statement about relative wealth is says nothing of particular values. Who is "rich" in one country can easily be considered poor in another, and who is poor in one community can be considered rich by others. There is no objective criteria, "rich" and "poor" aren't opposites but merely comparisons that are given "opposite" status in rhetorical speech.

Black and White are Not Opposite Colours

Black and white are "colours". Colours are specific wavelengths of light on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Outside of "Red" there is "Infrared", outside of Violet there is "Ultraviolet", and outside of this scale is an almost infinite spectrum of frequencies. All that defines the "colour" is an arbitrary human appreciation that differs from one person to another.

Everyone is capable of seeing different spreads of colours; just like one person can hear a different height of pitch to another person, one person is more sensitive to reds or blues than another. All colours differ from person to person.

"White" as a colour is a mix of multiple frequencies of light. "Black" as a colour is the lack of these frequencies. But in all "black" there are many frequencies we can't see. We could be looking at an intense source of radiation and call it "black" merely because we can't see its output. There could be a source of light that contains millions of frequencies across the spectrum, but this would be a completely different "white" to a source of light that was emitting only visible light. There is no single logical "white" light. Likewise there is no single "black". A black location could merely lack visible light or it could be too dim to make out (for many people, but not all), or it could lack all radiation and be completely black.

So you could have a black object that is radiating brilliantly at many frequencies, and a black that is radiating at none. They are "opposites" in one sense. But in the sense of visible light, they both look black. What we call "black" and "white" and how we define them as opposites are Human-only homocentric definitions; in terms of physical reality our "opposites" are logical nonsense, arbitrary and made-up to suit us, and not descriptions of reality. 'Black' and 'White' are only called opposites because it suits our speech but as such considering them 'opposites' is delusional and misleading unless you really do understand the nature of light and our eyes!

Physical Objects and Forces

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is a physical law that means for every force, the vector sum of opposite forces causes overall neutralization. This is required for the conservation of energy. But what is a "force" and what is an "opposite" force?

All forces have properties of physical location, direction, strength and direction in time. What we call "opposite" forces are merely forces with many properties that are equal and only one or two that are opposite. Note that the strength of a force is measured in Newtons. So, if a force is exerting itself Northwards at 20N newtons, the opposite force is one that contains many similar properties: Its effective vectoral position in space is the same as the other force, its sum strength is also the same, and its medium is the same. Its direction is opposite, but only across one axis. What we call an "opposite" only has one opposite property, all the rest are the same. Clearly what we mean by "opposite" in science is very much not a completely logical opposite, but a useful phrase to mean that one property, when added to its antagonist, equals zero. The overall vector force of any interaction is zero, but we call it an "opposite" despite being unable, logically, to state which property is the opposite.

For example if we have an electron moving "Northwards" with energy of 0.2MeV, what is an "opposite" to it? Just referencing an "opposite" to it does not suffice without assumptions or context because there is no true "opposite" to an object or force. We could say an opposite is a positron, the same speed, direction, etc, but with a positive charge. When they touch, they annihilate. Or, we could say its opposite is an electron that is physically "opposite" our electron in a room. Or maybe it is traveling in the opposite direction on a particular axis. Without an underlying assumption about reality, our "opposite" electron doesn't exist and is not a precise object. The thinking process around naming something an "opposite" relies on assumption and context.

The Annihilation of Opposite Particles such as Electrons and Positrons

When certain particles collide, they annihilate each other. Both particles are destroyed, and a variety of photos (pure energy) and different particles emerge from the fray. Supercolliders are heady scientific devices to smash particles together at high power in order to study the resultant particles. As electrons and positrons annihilate each other when they meet, are they opposites? I think not: they only sound like opposites in simplified rhetorical arguments. Three strong arguments refute the idea that electrons have an opposite:

• Firstly, both electrons and their 'opposite' are leptons (along with neutrinos), with a certain spin, charge, direction, energy, speed and negligible mass. It doesn't make sense to say that an "electron" is the opposite of a "negatron" rather than a Muon (which has opposite mass - lots of mass). In other words, electrons and positrons are only opposites in one characteristic (charge), not as a whole (and in point three below, we see that even this 'opposite' is an illusion).

• Secondly, they do not actually cancel each other out, despite the fact that both particles disappear in a collision. If the two particles were truly opposites, then, you could argue that one would have to have negative energy equivalent to the other's positive energy and when they collided the result would be that both disappear and create no photos or other particles. But their collision results in the creation of photos of energy (maintaining the natural principal of preservation of energy). That positron/negatron collisions result in annihilation may be because the charge is an inherent property of these particular leptons, and once the charge is neutralized, the rest of the particle is deconstituted.

• We are left with our final option: If these two leptons do have an opposite property (charge), then even though they are not opposite particles, do they still provide us with an example of an opposite property (the electron's negative charge versus the positron's positive one)? Charge can range from various discrete positive values, be neutral, or be negative. If the opposite of a particle with charge is a particle without charge, then, it seems that a positively charged particle could have two opposites - a negatively charged particle, or a particle with no charge. That it has two opposites defeats the idea of saying it has an opposite (which is a linear scale error as defined above).

These three problems can apply to all subatomic particles that I can think of, and all subatomic properties I can think of, including wilder properties such as spin. Rather than say (illogically) that the particles are opposites it is sensible instead to say that some of the properties of the particles interact destructively with each other.

Light and Dark

Light and dark are the subjective results of the sensitivity of our ours to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). In every direction, all the time, photons pass us that we cannot perceive with our eyes. In fact we can only see far less than 1% of the range of EMR. So the very idea of "light" and "dark" in human experience is highly anthrocentric and arbitrary. Just because we can't see what's going on doesn't make our idea of an "opposite" something that is rooted in reality. But how about de-humanizing the idea of light and dark and expanding them to cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum? If we proceed to say that "light" is any area of space that you can measure photons coming from, and "dark" is any area where there are none, are these two areas by definition opposite? It turns out that they are not.

Over what timespan would you measure photons? If you just want a snapshot and freeze all of reality, then, no EMR will ever arrive from the direction you're looking in. You can measure the amount of time that passes before an EMR touches your sensor (say, the first one might arrive in 10ms, 20ms, 2000ms or 8000ms etc). But why would a test that receives EMR after 10ms be an 'opposite' to one that receives one after 4000ms? It seems arbitrary, rather than a measure of a true 'opposite'. There has been no observed part of the universe where no photos are ever emitted. It seems that even such an abstract concept of "light" and "dark" falls foul of the complexities of reality. The common-sense approach must be to now admit that calling "dark" and "light" opposites is a traditional aspect of language, but it doesn't reflect anything true about the nature of photons moving through space over time.

Good and Evil

What is good for one being is frequently bad for another. For example in nature the whole cycle of biological life is based on death and recycling. Hence why major religions have historically been based around these themes, especially vegetation gods who rise every Winter Solstice. All predators find it good that prey is available; if you protect the prey you harm the predators, and whilst it is bad from the prey's point of view to be eaten, it is necessary from the predators point of view. In nature, natural survival is violent and competitive.

Bacteria₁ feed on biological chemicals to survive and breed. What is good for them is bad for us. While antibiotics are good for us and reduce our suffering, their usage create suffering and death for countless other minor species. What is good for one species is bad for others. While one culture may consider multiple marriage to be a virtue of love and positivity, another considers it an evil sin. What is good in one culture is bad in another. What was good in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible is bad in the New, what is good in the Buddhist Pali scriptures is wrong in the Therevada, what is considered an ethic by one group in society is considered wrong in another. What the homeless rightly do to survive is a "social evil" to those with homes, and how governments collect tax is evil to the poor person but a social necessity. Good and Evil are impossibly complex, inherently subjectivist. There are no actions that are good for everyone, and there are no actions that are bad for all species.

• Subjectivism

For example: A nuclear warhead is bad for millions of people but may well be good for undersea creatures who suffer from our pollutants. A life-saving vaccine may be good for many people but atrocious for the environment and create suffering due to overpopulation. Contraceptives are evil to Catholics, but a social good to others. Religion, society, individuals, species, cultures and systems all have conflicting interests, there are no universal interests that are good for all.

The Good - The closest thing we have to absolute good are the sociologists, doctors and advanced sciences that try to produce good, and improve life, without causing pain. Advanced science is good for long-term reduction of biological suffering, but bad for its potential misuses and mistakes. The most moral systems are those who take as much as possible into account - Buddhists who avoid taking all life even of low life forms, scientists who develop cures and moral population controls, developments towards tolerance of beliefs and anti-xenophobia.

The Bad - But ascetic Buddhists use resources whilst producing only limited food: cures can cause overpopulation and long-term side effects not least the waste products of the methods of drug production, population controls can be misused, acceptance of others can lead to subservience to and acceptance of inferior, more barbaric cultures.

And the Ugly - What most "good" things have in common is that they attempt to reduce suffering, reduce violence and make life better. In short, they all aim towards unnatural, humanistic ends. The opposite to these are those who would take us back to history, to the barbaric, unthinking ends of violent nature: Segretarian Fundamentalists, religious extremists, human monsters, selfishness and stupidity are all our greatest enemies. Lack of insight, lack of science and compassion: Progress is a difficult and disheartening fight against a multitude of complex enemies.

• Vexen's pages on Human Stupidity

But what we view as progress towards peace and happiness, religious extremists view as spiritual folly; where we consider toleration of religious beliefs compassionate, they consider it evil that anything but their own beliefs are considered correct. This bigotry is what they view as good, and we as evil.

There are no actions that are "good" or "bad" from the point of view of all peoples, cultures, societies, species and interests. There is no "opposite" of good and evil, there is no scale with "good" on one side and "evil" on the other: There are only conflicting interests. Only personal opinion, compromise and discord. "Good" is not the opposite of "evil" as both concepts are too personal, too subjective and too elusive to warrant definition or resolution as opposites.

• Satanism: The balanced acceptance of good and evil: Most religions cause imbalance

Gay & Straight

Gay and straight are "opposite" in that they are both different, but not logical opposite. The opposite of any sexuality could easily be asexuality - the attraction to nothing at all. That we choose one sexuality to be the "opposite" of another is nonsense. Gay males are attracted mostly to males, straight males are attracted mostly to females, paedophiles are attracted to children, zoophiles are attracted to animals. Of the multiple sexualities, it makes little sense to say any one is an "opposite" of another except in the most arbitrary way. There are multiple sexualities, on a scale with ill-defined ends, not just two opposing sexualities, gay or straight. It is only by convention that the person who replied "gay and straight" could say as such when I asked him to name two opposites. Convention dictates many opposites - not logic. Conventions set the middle ground about which we invent opposites. In reality, the genes that make up gay or straight are 99% the same in both cases, there is only a finite number, of many thousands, of genes that affect sexuality. That we call one set of genes the "opposite" of another when in fact they are mostly the same is due to a convention that exists in our culture, not because "sexuality" is a integer solid state machine that can be logically paired into opposites. Convention, not logic, dictates what we call "opposite".

	Conclusions

The conclusion is that many concepts of "opposites" are illusions. Visible colours such as Black and White are not physical opposites, moral concepts of Good and Evil are anthrocentric and subjectivist. Rich and poor, hot and cold are both only illusionary opposites. In all English usages of the term "opposite" it is an arbitrary and incidental term, according only to cultural definition and suited to Human experience, not to absolute reality. In reality, in science and physics, there are no simple opposites. Physically it is not true that "everything has an opposite" and truer that "nothing has an opposite". Beyond suppositions and assumption, any in-depth investigation of an "opposite" shows it to be a useful phrase and term, but not a description of any deep reality. The term "opposite" is only suited to English and art, not to logical philosophy or physical science.

All things are connected, therefore nothing has a true opposite.

If many of the arguments on this page are purely rhetorical, it is because the basis of "opposites" it itself rhetorical, arbitrary and illusionary. Convention and assumption rule what we call "opposites", in reality there are none that turn out to be genuinely opposite without making assumptions about central points.