Fundamental Universe Theory
Leave no stone un-turned. Question everything.
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
Fundamental Universe Solved
-
Fundamental Universe Solved
Final post, unless someone cares to comment. I won’t hold my breath.
Cantor was wrong. Painfully wrong. Miserably wrong. Woefully misguided.
|1| / |0| = ∞
Infinity = Constant of Change
Finite = Absence of Change
Infinity is analog
Finite is binary
The universe is analogous to a simple single pole light switch. It represents the division or physical separation of 1 and 0. It requires motion between those two points to be in either position, which necessarily causes change that results in the perception of time.
On/Off = Analog
1/0 = Analog
Motion = Analog
Time is a derivative motion.
Motion is a derivative of motionless space.
Space must always exist, but motionless space necessarily lies outside the observable universe.
This is falsifiable. Show me somewhere in the universe absent motion, or time, or space. Anywhere.
The universe is most likely a finite series of analog nested waves, laid out like this;
|1| > 1… > ∞ > 0… > |0|
Infinity cannot be labeled with numeric values because it is not a binary state.
Think about it logically.
When 1 is divided by 0, the result of that answer would wind up being a smooth unbroken result. 1/1 for example, results in definitive singular finite object with a value of 1.
1/0 = Motion
Motion is analog, not discreet. It is a smooth unbroken process.
Motion is time, which is also analog.
Space, motion, and time causes energy, which can be quantified between 1 and 0.
The absence of motion yields a potential to perform work, which we define as potential energy.
1 is potential energy.
0 is the absence of existence, which cannot occur. The laws of physics even tells us that, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. Infinity cannot be quantified, because it is an analog state. It is physically impossible mathematically. Cantor actually proved it, because he showed none of the cardinalities can be infinite. That resulted in Cantor’s paradox, which isn’t a paradox at all. Set Theory is perfectly valid in the digital realm, but Infinite Set Theory is an ill conceived, fallacious, and erroneous concept. The digital can be used to probe or understand the analog, but neither can physically be the other. They are two fundamentally different concepts. Counting and quantities do not apply to analogs.
We place way too much emphasis on numbers. We forget that numbers are an invention of mankind. It’s a simple redundant logical labeling system designed to quantify objects for resale or commerce. That was the intent of numbering and math. 10 fingers wasn’t enough to carry an inventory or sort cash. We expanded on that simple concept with a universal numbering system, for the sole purpose of fair trade. We developed a teachable numeric an mathematical system so we could assess monetary value to objects in relation to other objects.
Mathematics and numbers were not design for science. They were retrofitted.
We are treating the universe like an accounting problem.
-
1 Reply
-
You understood that analog and discrete/digital systems are incompatible, yet you use 1/0 or “infinity” to describe motion. Division is derived from discrete problems. Analog situations cannot be put into numeric representations. So why even use the terms 1 and 0 and why refer to division? It makes no sense whatsoever. “Binary” is not the opposite of analog. Binary either refers to a base-2 number system, or a two-state/two-category system. Discrete is the opposite of analog.
I don’t get why you use conventional mathematical notation to talk about anything analog in a way that sounds like you’re not just talking about approximations. It would be much better if you came up with terms that exactly mean what you’re trying to convey. Maybe even come up with a mathematical notation for analogs. Because just referring back to the current mainstream math system and its concepts of 1) division, 2) numbers, and 3) infinity, you write something that means something completely different from what you’re trying to say. Infinite means unending. Number is etymologically related to counting. So infinite numbers or amounts or counts of something (waves, in your example), are an oxymoron.
I get that maths is convenient to use, but even just talking about numbers and infinities without setting up a proper framework first, especially in a context where discrete numbers are out of place, makes no sense. Either you reject discrete numbers for your physics and stop using them, or you are forced to use infinitesimals, but then you can’t use 0.
I’m sure analog mathematics systems could be established, and would probably be quite appropriate for modeling space and time. But they would be fundamentally different from our current mathematical system, I assume.