Abstract

This essay explores the profound significance of the letter Bet (ב), the first letter of the Torah, and its numerical value of two as a fundamental hint at the binary nature of our universe. Through an analysis of Jewish mystical texts, philosophical works, and modern physics, we demonstrate how this duality manifests across multiple dimensions of existence. The paper examines the Creator-creation relationship, the nature of time, and paradoxes inherent in divine attributes, showing how these apparent dualities emerge from absolute divine unity. This synthesis of the Torah wisdom and contemporary science suggests that the binary structure implied by the letter Bet may be more than metaphorical, potentially representing a fundamental characteristic of reality itself.

I.              Introduction

The Torah begins with the letter Bet (ב), the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in the word “Bereshit” (בראשית, “In the beginning”). This choice has intrigued Jewish scholars for millennia, especially given that the Torah could have begun with Alef (א), the first letter. The numerical value (gematria) of Bet is two, which carries profound implications for our understanding of creation and existence.

According to the Arizal, the number two—the numerical value of the letter Bet—hints that the narrative of creations starts with the second word of seder hishtalshelut (chain-like ontological order for creation), the world of Beriah (“Creation,” which also starts with the letter Bet).

Number two also hints that the creation takes place in the second created universe (Tikkun) following the first universe of Tohu.

As I previously wrote in “Two Beginnings” (2012), the number two hints at two timelines—one from the time of the Big Bang and the second, much shorter one, from the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve.

This paper explores the hypothesis that the letter Bet hints at the fundamentally binary nature of our universe. We examine this proposition through multiple lenses: traditional Jewish sources, philosophical discourse, and modern physics. The binary nature manifests in various dualities: Creator and creation, existence and non-existence, matter and spirit, and in the basic fabric of reality itself.

It is axiomatic in Judaism that there is no cannot be any duality or multiplicity in G‑d. This categorical statement is the foundation of monotheism. However, we find multiplicity all around us. The Psalmist sang:

How manifold are Your works, O Lord! With wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your creations. (Psalms 104:24)

Several key questions guide our investigation:

  1. How does multiplicity emerge from divine unity?
  2. What role does duality play in the process of creation?
  3. How do modern theories of digital physics align with traditional Jewish thought?
  4. Can angels be understood as cosmic information processors in a binary universe?

Through this exploration, we aim to demonstrate that the binary nature of reality, hinted at by the letter Bet, represents a fundamental principle that bridges ancient wisdom and modern scientific understanding.

II.           Bet: The First Letter of the Torah

The first letter of the Torah is the Bet of Bereshit (“In the beginning”). Its numerical value (gematria) is two. I suggest that this hits at the binary nature of our universe. The following considerations support this suggestion.

The selection of Bet as the first letter of the Torah carries multiple layers of significance:

  1. Numerical Symbolism;
  2. The gematria value of two suggests duality and multiplicity;
  3. Represents the second universe (Tikkun) following the primordial universe of Tohu;
  4. Hints at two parallel creation narratives and timelines.
  5. Spiritual Significance:
  6. Points to the world of Beriah (creation), the second stage in the order of divine emanation;
  7. Symbolizes the beginning of duality necessary for creation.
  8. Metaphysical Implications:
  9. Suggests the fundamental binary structure underlying reality;
  10. Hints at the necessary illusion of separation from the Creator;
  11. Points to the complementary nature of opposing forces in creation.

III.        Duality in the creation

A.   The Creation of Duality

Although G‑d in His essence is a simple oneness, the creation immediately introduces the perception of the Creator vs. creation duality. Nachmanides (1971) writes in his commentary on Bereshit (Genesis 1:1):

In the beginning, G‑d created… From absolute non-existence into existence. This act introduces the concept of creation, where before, there was only the simple unity of G‑d. The creation does not imply a change in Him but in the state of existence.

This perception is, of course, illusory because the creation exists in the “Mind” of G‑d. Thus, the Kabbalists (Zohar, 2004),[1] (Etz Chaim, 2008),[2] Jewish philosophers (Maimonides, 1963)[3] and Chasidic Masters (Dov Ber of Mezeritch, Rabbi, 2001)[4],  (Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi, 1984)[5] shared this view. Nevertheless, the illusion of duality is necessary for the creation to feel its own existence, however contingent.[6],[7],[8]

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Shneerson (1992), further explains that the feeling of independence—that is, the feeling of the duality of existence—is not a negative but, on the contrary, the necessary condition to achieve the purpose of creation. The Rebbe writes:

The feeling of independence in the creations is not a flaw but a fundamental aspect of G‑d’s plan. It allows them to transform their environment into a dwelling place for the Divine, which can only happen when they perceive themselves as separate agents.

Thus, all branches of Jewish thought—Kabbalah, Chasidism, and Jewish philosophy—agree that (a) G‑d in his essence is a simple oneness, (b) the creation made no change in G‑d, (c) the perception of multiplicity is an illusion, albeit necessary to accomplish the goal of the creation.

B.   Creation of Time

The creation exists in time (Tanya, Igeret HaKodesh, 20, 1984). Existence is a temporal concept and is only meaningful as “the existence in time.”

The relationship between time and existence has a long tradition in Western philosophy. Thus, Emmanuel Kant posits that time is a necessary a priori condition for human experience. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that all phenomena are perceived within the frameworks of space and time. For Kant, existence is meaningful because it appears within time (1965). Without temporal conditions, our ability to comprehend or ascribe existence to anything would be impossible. Martin Heidegger argues in Being and Time that the question of being (existence) is intrinsically linked to temporality. He suggests that understanding existence requires an analysis of time because human existence (Dasein) is fundamentally temporal. Heidegger argues (1962) that the concept of existence remains incomplete without considering temporality. In Time and Free Will, Henri Bergson (1910) introduces the concept of “duration” (la durée), emphasizing that true existence is experienced through the continuous flow of time. He argues that reality is a continuous process and that our consciousness perceives existence through this temporal flow, making time essential to the meaning of existence. Paul Tillich (1951) examines the relationship between being and time, proposing that existence becomes actualized within the temporal process. He asserts that “being” is dynamic and realizes itself in time. Without time, the potentialities of being would not manifest as existence.

Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch (the Rebbe Rashab) (2012) elucidates the understanding of time as a necessary dimension for creation and existence. He explains that time allows the infinite divine light to be expressed in a way that creations can perceive and relate to, making existence meaningful within temporal boundaries. He writes:

Time serves as the medium through which the Infinite Light is progressively revealed within the finite realm. Without the dimension of time, the emanations of the divine would remain inaccessible to creation. Time allows for the sequential unfolding of spiritual processes, making existence meaningful to created beings by enabling them to perceive and relate to the Divine in a measured and comprehensible way.

As I wrote in my essay, “Rosh HaShanah: The Beginning of Change,” time is essentially the change (shinui), and shinui (“change”) is cognate with shnei (two), implying that time requires duality (Kaplan, 1990), because it is essentially ebb and flow of the relationship (between the Creator and His creation). This duality originates in another relationship between the Creator and His creation—G‑d is revealed and concealed; He is immanent and transcendental; He is touching and not touching—mati velo mati. This duality is mirrored by the lower duality of ratzo v’shav—running and returning.

C.   The Essential Paradox

Trying to fathom G‑d’s perfection, we must admit He is not limited by his infinity and must possess the potential for finitude (ko’ach ha-gvul) as much as the potential for infinity (ko’ach bli-gvul). This apparent duality (ko’ach bli-gvul vs. ko’ach ha-gvul) does not diminish in any way the absolute oneness of G‑d and is merely a reflection of the limitation of the human mind to comprehend a paradox.

Similarly, our attempt to contemplate G‑d’s existence, forcing us to admit that perfect G‑d is not limited by His existence, leads to a paradoxical state of existence and non-existence. Of course, G‑d’s existence, as Maimonides stated, is necessary upon which all existence is contingent. The existence vs. non-existence paradox is a mere reflection of the limitations of our language in which the word existence is meaningful only insofar as there is a possibility of non-existence. This creates yet another illusory duality. Any attribute we wish to assign to G‑d must necessarily be complemented by its negation to preserve divine perfection. This is expressed as the principle nimna hanimna’ot (“restricting [all] restrictions”) (Rashba).[9] Thus, the paradoxical nature of the Creator is perceived by the creation as the illusion of a duality. Whereas every thesis peacefully coexists with its antithesis in the Creator, who could be said to be in a superposition of all possible (and impossible) states, in the creation, which reflects its Creator, thesis and antithesis collide and cannot coexist. They are separated either logically as true and false or temporarily as first thesis and then antithesis. This perceived duality results in the binary nature of the created universe, as expressed in the letter Bet of Bereshit.

D.   Duality in the Creation

The perceived primordial duality is mirrored by many dualities of the created world: light and vessels in Kabbalah, being and non-being, thesis and antithesis, true and false, good and evil, change and permanence, plus and minus, male and female, Jews and gentiles, south and north magnetic poles, matter and antimatter, wave-particle duality, future and past, matter and spirit, body and soul, form and substance, and so on. This universe appears binary as any of these dualities could be encoded as zeros and ones.

IV.        Binary Universe

A.   Cellular Automation

The binary universe theory posits that reality is fundamentally structured around pairs of opposites or complementary principles that define the fabric of existence. This theory extends beyond the traditional Cartesian dualism of mind and matter, embracing more complex models incorporating philosophical, physical, and mathematical insights.

1.     Classical Dualism and Its Philosophical Roots

Binary or dualistic thinking has long been a subject of philosophical inquiry. From the ancient Chinese concept of yin and yang to the Platonic dualism that separates the ideal forms from their imperfect earthly manifestations, the binary division has served to make sense of the world’s inherent complexities (Laozi, 2018), (Plato, 1992). This dualism suggests that every aspect of reality reflects an interaction between two opposing forces.

In modern physics, binary models often manifest through theoretical constructs that depict the universe as composed of interdependent dualities. For instance, the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics illustrates how fundamental particles exhibit properties of both particles and waves, depending on the nature of their observation (Heisenberg, 1958). This principle implies that the universe cannot be fully understood without acknowledging its dual nature, challenging classical notions of objectivity and reality.

2.     Binary Universe in Modern Theoretical Physics

The concept of a binary universe refers to a theoretical idea that the fundamental nature of the universe is based on binary code, which consists of only two digits: 0 and 1. This idea suggests that everything in the universe, from particles to people, can be represented and understood through the lens of binary code.

One of the earliest proponents of the binary universe, Konrad Zuse, introduced the idea that the universe operates on a computational framework in his book Calculating Space (Zuse, 1969). Zuse’s pioneering idea suggested that the universe operates as a deterministic cellular automaton, laying the foundational concept that reality is fundamentally computational and discrete. Zuse suggested that the entire cosmos could be understood as a giant cellular automaton processing information in a discrete, binary manner.

Building on this idea, Edward Fredkin developed the concept of Digital Philosophy, arguing that the universe is a digital informational process governed by reversible cellular automata (Fredkin, 1990). Fredkin introduced the Fredkin Finite Nature hypothesis, which proposes that the universe is fundamentally discrete and digital in nature. According to this hypothesis, space, time, and all physical phenomena are composed of finite, indivisible units,[10] and the evolution of the universe operates through computational processes similar to those in a digital computer. (Fredkin, 1992). Fredkin’s model implies that space, time, and matter are emergent properties of underlying binary information processes.

3.     It from Bit

The notion that information constitutes the core of physical reality is central to the Binary Universe Theory. John Archibald Wheeler famously coined the phrase “It from Bit,” proposing that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin (Wheeler, 1990). Wheeler’s perspective implies that binary choices—yes or no questions—are at the heart of quantum phenomena and, by extension, the universe itself.

4.     Computational Universe and Digital Physics

Expanding on this, Seth Lloyd, in Programming the Universe, posits that the universe is a quantum computer processing information at the most fundamental level (Lloyd, 2006). According to Lloyd, every particle interaction represents a computational operation, suggesting that the universe’s evolution is equivalent to a massive computation unfolding in binary quantum bits.

Quantum computing introduces a new dimension to the Binary Universe Theory by utilizing quantum bits (qubits), which can represent zeros and ones simultaneously due to superposition. In The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch (1997) discusses how quantum computation could explain the universe’s complexity. The binary nature of qubits supports the idea that the universe’s fundamental processes are computational and binary, albeit in a quantum context.

Stephen Wolfram further explored these ideas in A New Kind of Science (Wolfram, 2002), investigating how simple computational rules, executed repeatedly, can produce complex and seemingly random patterns observed in nature. Wolfram’s work suggests that the universe’s laws could be derived from basic binary computations. This approach became known as digital physics.

Max Tegmark introduces the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, asserting that the universe’s structure is inherently mathematical and that physical reality is a mathematical structure (Tegmark, 2008). While not explicitly binary, Tegmark’s view aligns with the Binary Universe Theory by suggesting that mathematical relationships—expressible in binary code—underlie all physical phenomena.

The simulation hypothesis posits that the universe could be an artificial construct akin to a computer simulation. This idea, advanced by philosopher Nick Bostrom (2003), relies heavily on the binary nature of computational systems. If our universe is indeed a simulation, then binary code could be the fundamental fabric of reality, blurring the line between Creator and creation and echoing the idea that the creation exists in the Mind of G‑d.

V.           Conclusion

The investigation of the letter Bet and its implications for understanding the binary nature of our universe reveals a remarkable convergence of ancient Jewish wisdom and modern scientific thought. The numerical value of two associated with Bet appears to be far more than a coincidence, serving as a fundamental key to understanding the structure of reality itself.

Our analysis has demonstrated how this binary nature manifests across multiple dimensions:

  1. In the Creator-creation relationship, where apparent duality emerges from absolute unity;
  2. In the nature of time itself, which requires change in the web and flow of the relationship and, therefore, duality;
  3. In the paradoxical nature of divine attributes, where every thesis must be complemented by its antithesis;
  4. In the physical world, where binary oppositions form the basic structure of reality;
  5. In the proposed role of angels as cosmic information processors, bridging the gap between divine unity and physical multiplicity.

The binary universe theory, supported by both traditional Jewish sources and modern physics, suggests that reality at its most fundamental level operates on binary principles. This understanding provides a bridge between the divine wisdom encoded in the first letter of the Torah and contemporary scientific theories about the computational nature of the universe.

Bibliography

Bergson, Henri. (1910). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (F. L. Pogson, Trans.). George Allen & Unwin.

Bostrom, N. (2003). Are we living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255.

Chaim Vital, Rabbi. (2008). Etz Chaim (Tree of Life). Torah Ohr Publications.

Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—And Its Implications. Penguin Books.

Dov Ber of Mezeritch, Rabbi. (2001). Maggid Devarav LeYa’akov. Kehot Publication Society.

Fredkin, E. (1990). Digital mechanics: An informational process based on reversible universal cellular automata. PhysComp ’90 Proceedings, 254–270.

Fredkin, E. (1992). Finite Nature. Proceedings of the XXVIIth Rencontre de Moriond.

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and Time (John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Harper & Row.

Kant, Immanuel. (1965). Critique of Pure Reason (Norman Kemp Smith, Trans.). St. Martin’s Press.

Kaplan, Aryeh. (1990). Innerspace: Introduction to Kabbalah, Meditation and Prophecy (2nd ed.). Moznaim Publishing.

Laozi. (2018). Tao Te Ching (D. Hinton, Trans.). Counterpoint.

Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. Knopf.

Maimonides, M. (1963). The Guide for the Perplexed (Shlomo Pines, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Rabbi. (1992). Likutei Sichot (Vol. 6). Kehot Publication Society.

Nachmanides. (1971). Commentary on the Torah: Genesis (Charles B. Chavel, Trans.). Shilo Publishing House.

Plato. (1992). The Republic (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

Poltorak A. (2012, October 12). Two Beginnings. Quantum Torah. https://quantumtorah.com/two-beginnings/

Rashba. (n.d.). Responsa of the Rashba (Shu”t HaRashb”a) (Vol. 1–1).

Schneersohn, Shalom DovBer, Rabbi. (2012). Hemshech Ayin Beis (5672). Kehot Publication Society.

Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. (1984a). Tanya (Nissan Mindel, Trans.). Kehot Publication Society.

Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. (1984b). Tanya: Vol. Igeret HaKodesh (Nissan Mindel, Trans.). Kehot Publication Society.

Simon bar Yochai, Rabbi. (2004). The Zohar: Vol. Part II (Daniel C. Matt, Trans.; p. 42b). Stanford University Press.

Tegmark, M. (2008). The mathematical universe. Foundations of Physics, 38(2), 101–150.

Tillich, Paul. (1951). Systematic Theology (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.

Wheeler, J. A. (1990). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Zurek, W. H. (Ed.), pp. 3–28). Addison-Wesley.

Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.

Zuse, K. (1969). Rechnender Raum [Calculating Space]. Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn.

Endnotes:

[1] Thus, the Zohar states, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to create the world, He began by forming a single point, which became a thought, and within it, He drew all the shapes and images. Yet, He remained unchanged, and all is one unified whole.” (Simon bar Yochai, Rabbi. The Zohar. Part II, 42b. Translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.)

[2] Rabbi Chaim Vital writes in the name of his teacher, the Arizal, in Etz Chaim, “Before the emanations were emanated and the creatures were created, the simple supernal light filled all existence… When it arose in His will to create the worlds… He contracted His light… Thus, the perception of separation began, though in truth, all remains within His unity.” (Chaim Vital, Rabbi. Etz Chaim (Tree of Life). Heichal A”K, Anaf 2. Jerusalem: Torah Ohr Publications, 2008.)

[3] For example, Maimonides writes in his Guide, “The belief in the unity of G‑d is not complete unless it includes the conviction that His essence is one simple substance, without any composition or plurality of elements… The actions emanating from Him do not affect any change in His essence.” (Moses Maimonides. The Guide for the Perplexed. Part I, Chapter 57. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.)

[4] Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch, the “Magid,” who took over the leadership of the Chasidic movement from the Baal Shem Tov, continues this line of thought and says, “The Divine Essence is utterly simple and unified, without any attributes or qualities. When the light emanated to create the worlds, it was clothed in attributes to allow the creations to receive it. This process introduces the perception of diversity, though in essence, all is one.” (Dov Ber of Mezeritch, Rabbi. Maggid Devarav LeYa’akov. §43. Jerusalem: Kehot Publication Society, 2001.)

[5] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (the Alter Rebbe), who was the student of the Magid, expands on this reasoning in Tanya: “Before anything was created, He alone existed, and He is One even after creation, without any change… the worlds are utterly nullified in their very existence as if they are truly non-existent and void in relation to Him.” (Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Tanya, Likutei Amarim, Chapter 20, Translated by Nissan Mindel. New York: Kehot Publication Society, 1984.) The Alter Rebbe further writes in Tanya, “G‑d’s unity implies that even after He created the world, it is still G‑d alone… creation does not introduce any change or multiplicity in Him… everything that exists is contained within G‑d’s simple unity, and the world only exists as it is continuously brought into being from nothingness by G‑d’s will.” (Ibid, Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah, Chapter 7.) He writes in another place, “The creation of the world did not cause any change in His unity. The world and all it contains are considered as nothing before Him… The existence of the world introduces a perception of separateness only from the standpoint of the creations.” (Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Torah Or. Parshat Bereishit. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1987.)

[6] The Zohar states, “The creation of the worlds came about through a concealment of the supernal light. This concealment was necessary so that lower beings could come into existence and perceive themselves as separate, thus enabling them to serve G‑d.” (Simon bar Yochai, Rabbi. The Zohar. Volume II, 42b. Translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.)

[7] The Magid similarly writes, “The Holy One contracted His infinite light to create a vacuum and space wherein the worlds could exist. This contraction allows the creations to perceive themselves as independent, which is essential for the fulfillment of their purpose.” (Dov Ber of Mezeritch, Rabbi. Maggid Devarav LeYa’akov. §136. Jerusalem: Kehot Publication Society, 2001.)

[8] The Alter Rebbe continues in the same tradition, “This is what our Sages meant when they said that the purpose of the creation of this world is that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms. To achieve this, the concealment of His infinite light was necessary, allowing creations to feel their own existence and autonomy.” (Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Tanya. Likutei Amarim, Chapter 36. Translated by Nissan Mindel. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1973.) He also writes, “If the divine life-force were not concealed within the garments of the world, the worlds would not feel their own existence. Therefore, the contraction and concealment are essential for the creations to perceive themselves as separate entities.” (Ibid, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, Chapter 4.) And further, “The essence of the divine light is unity, but to create the worlds, it was necessary to conceal this unity. This allowed for multiplicity and the feeling of separateness among creations, enabling them to fulfill the divine intent.” (Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Torah Or. Parshat Bereishit. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1987.)

[9] See also Sefer HaChakirah by the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 34b ff., and Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, Maamar Gadol Yiheyeh Kavod HaBayis HaZeh. See also Sefer HaMa’amarim 5643, p. 100; and loc. cit. 5665 p. 185.

[10] In 1972, when I was fifteen, I became convinced that space and time were made of finite units—Planck length and Planck time, respectively. This led me to a mathematical challenge: if space and time are discrete, how can we use calculus, which relies on infinitesimally small units? To solve this problem, I developed a finite version of calculus that could work with finite units. I presented my ideas at Theoretical Physics Seminar of Prof. D. D. Ivanenko at Moscow University. I was politely informed that such finite calculus already existed as the theory of finite differences—I had merely reinvented it. While my underlying idea of discrete space-time would later become foundational to the binary universe theory, this was just one—albeit critical—element of Fredkin’s Finite Nature Hypothesis. I didn’t anticipate other key aspects of his theory, published in 2003, such as the concept that information is reality’s most fundamental component and that physical entities and forces emerge from underlying digital informational processes. I was also unaware of cellular automata theory—mathematical models of cell grids evolving through simple rules—which underlies his approach. Thus, while I didn’t anticipate digital physics, I did foresee one of its critical elements: the discrete nature of space-time.