MemberNovember 30, 2020 at 5:57 pm
I use a wide range of topics to convey my ideas, or theory if you’d like to call it that. I incorporate a little philosophy, a little basic math, logic, reason, history, and a few assumptions, etc. I don’t think science should be done in a vacuum. We rely on math for empirical data, but math is a tool, not an answer. It always takes a human being to derive meaning from a mathematical result. Math is not an answer, it’s the result of the question, or an unknown result promoted to a theory. Dark Energy for example.
Understanding people, philosophy, culture and religion, etc., is every bit as important in our quest to understand the universe. They cannot be disregarded as irrelevant, try as we may to uphold the “idea” of the objective observer. Human beings are not objective creatures. We hold opinions and beliefs, possess deep emotion that most definitely sways our judgement in what we even communicate to others, and make a lot of assumptions to navigate the world around us. To think science is somehow above all that in their approach to understanding is naive. They’re bound to laws of nature, and the human condition in nature, just like everyone else, and nothing can remove unobjective scientists from the equation. It’s not even an option really. It is something every scientist should be amply aware of when they enter the field. People have opinions and hold beliefs. Everyone.
Never does this become more apparent than in a comment David de Hilster made to one of my posts. Just pointing it out David. Nothing meant by it. “Be careful about being so sure”. Something to that effect. In other words, remain uncertain. I would argue, there is a time to weight your conclusions with certainty and uncertainty, but when those conclusions lead you to certainty, don’t be afraid to say it. I am certain, |0|<∞<|1|, is correct.
Can anyone prove it wrong? No.
We must weed out the bullshit in science, and to do that, you must understand people.
Cantor is a great example. And I am not picking on religion here, or him, so don’t twist what I’m saying. Whatever someone needs to get them from A to B is fine with me. I neither agree, nor disagree. Religion isn’t all that bad as a concept, as far as family and community goes. I grew up in a very religious family.
Cantor was not doing science or mathematics. Cantor was on a religious quest, or crusade. Cantor believed god spoke to him and gave him a religious mandate to reveal trans infinite numbers to mankind. Honestly, I don’t even know what a trans infinite number means, as I’m sure 99.999999% of the world population doesn’t either. Cantor was decidedly unobjective. He believed infinity was god. Naturally, Cantor was going to find a mathematical solution for infinity no matter what he did. He was an extremist religious fanatic. Clearly. God gave Georg Cantor math homework? Really?
Back then, fanatical was okay. Even Leopold made the comment, “god made the integers, all else is the work of man.” Or something to that effect. Leopold did not agree with Cantor’s set theory one bit and found it all nonsense. Leopold was both right and wrong. But they both held strong beliefs.
Numbers are an invention of mankind from around the 5th century BC. Indian mathematicians developed a base 10 redundant numeric system that was easy to understand and could be taught. They chose a base 10 system because it coincided with what mankind was already doing, counting on our fingers. If we had 4 fingers on each hand, it would have been a base 8 system, or 3 fingers, a base 6 system.
Numbers were an invention, like a car, or an airplane, or a stapler. Although the invention of numbers was a huge leap forward in mankind, because it consolidated what we were all already doing on our fingers into one thing, numbers themselves don’t mean anything to the universe. Defining a consistent way to count gave us the ability to teach others how to count uniformly. Numbers were a disruptive technology that brought human beings together under one common language. Numbers were an invention of communication. A global language.
Math was the discovery, not numbers. We notice we could perform fundamental math on our fingers. We could easily add, subtract, divide, and multiply within the space of 10 digits. And with this newly invented redundant numbering system, we realized math applied to that too no matter how big the number(s). We then needed ways to manage these larger numbers, so high-level mathematics were developed. Mathematics evolved around a solid useful invention of a base 10 numbering system. People could now communicate ideas numerically. It was disruptive.
Numbers themselves weaved their way into the fabric of society and took on a whole new meaning. Religion wormed its way into the invention. Numerology is an excellent example of people being people. The lucky number 7 wouldn’t even be a thing if we had developed a base 6 numbering system.
What’s important to note here, is that math was the true discovery of nature, because math is translatable to physical reality. The universe behaves mathematically. That discovery was the birth of true science. I would go as far as to say, that was the most significant discovery in all of mankind, hands down. Numbers? Meh.
Throw out the invention and find the root cause of that mathematical link to the universe. In that lies the answer. And that’s exactly what I went looking for 35 years ago. It’s a stupid simple question. What is 0, and what is 1, in relation to the universe? It is the idea of something versus nothing that binds us to math, because all math can be done within the space of 0 and 1.
0 and 1 is a linear problem, or more appropriately, a 1-dimensional problem. We have 3 1-dimensional problems working in tandem. Motion, Scale, and Time. Scale dictates both time and motion.
The universe cannot and does not do random. Math could not work in a random space of 0 and 1. Math needs a 0, and a 1, and all the linear variables in between, because the universe is all the variables that lie between. It cannot be any other way.
So, I must ask, does this, “infinity – a number greater than any assignable or countable number”, make sense to the universe?
You can only come to one conclusion objectively. No. It is wrong.
If that can be so wrong for so long, what else are we missing?
Length, width and height, are an invention of man. It helped us build pyramids and houses. Dimension in mathematics does not imply physical structure. It only requires a minimum and maximum value of something, whatever that something is. We inserted scale into space, defining it by its length width and weight. We labeled it 3D space erroneously. And then Einstein dropped time on top, giving us a 4D universe. Nope, you can’t do that, because space is 1 thing, not 3 things. The fact that we see it as 3D is a function of time and motion, and together, all 3 dimensions of, space, time and motion, form 3D mass energy. That’s what we see and experience. What gives space dimensions is the same thing that gives matter dimensions, space, time, and motion. It is the only logical conclusion you come to, objectively.
Everything else, is an invention of mankind.