Member Andy
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Everything we use to investigate the universe is matter based. There is no way around it. A meter for example, is based on an arbitrary length of platinum. Even converting it to light we’re still using matter to define an arbitrary length.
Actual velocity of anything is unknowable. We can’t even know for sure if the speed of light is constant.
Suppose matter was contracting and the speed of light changing at the same rate universally. Everything would appear static and unchanging. Light would appear constant. A meter would always look like a meter. At the same time, imagine galaxies weren’t moving much laterally. They’re pretty much in the same spot they were millions, or even billions of years ago, sans any local gravitational attraction to each other.
What we would see is expansion when looking at distant galaxies, although we would be oblivious to the reasons. We would assume inflation as the most expedient explanation. Then we’d start reversing inflation to central point of origin and assume the universe exploded into existence.
The idea of contraction is sort of a misnomer in my view. It’s not really the right way to look at it, but it’s easier to explain as contraction. Contraction implies an external or internal force acting upon something making it contract. I’m not suggesting any force is required in the process.
The physical universe that we are immersed in is only 1-dimension. Space. Motion gives it a 2<sup>nd</sup> dimension, and time gives it a 3rd dimension. These are tightly bound and inseparable dimensions. Space without motion is dimensionless. Time without motion is meaningless.
We have been defining space as 3-dimensional for centuries. And I have to question that concept, because it literally makes no sense the more I’ve thought about it. Interestingly, I have asked the meaning of dimension many many times over the years. How do we define what a dimension is? You’d think this would be a very simple answer to ask well educated people that are well versed in science and physics. To my surprise, I have never gotten a straight answer. It’s appears subjective with questionable interpretations. I think this is simply a case of knowledge through osmosis that never gets questioned. Of course the universe is 3D, right? I think it’s wrong.
When we say space is built on 3 dimensions, we’re defining 3 individual and unique dimensions of, Length, Width, and Height. What I’ve struggled to understand is that Width and Height are identical in meaning to length. So, 3D is actually length1 x length2 x length3. That’s not 3-dimensions, that’s 1-dimensions perceived as 3 dimensions based on motion and time. Our physical world is not really definable by 3 separate spacial dimensions, is it? It’s 1 single physical dimension of length. That’s reality.
The fundamental spacial universe is 1D.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
What allows us to experience 3D is the variable omnidirectional nature in the orientation of that fundamental 1D spacial reality, and the time it takes to move from A to B.
What this leads me to understand is that a physical dimension of orientation itself is paramount in the construction and understanding of our universe. Orientation cannot be a random derivative of our spacial reality. There has to be an up and down, or more appropriately, an inward and outward, in order to comprehend a direction and motion and time and scales. We need a compass to get anywhere. Orientation is not random.
And that leads to a dimension of scale, which is an amalgamation of all the dimensions that make something physically real to us. Scale is everything. Scale is not random.
I see these flaws in our reasoning, and I then wonder, is this just me not understanding what science is talking about?
Our understanding of the universe feels so contrived and lacking. And if you’re not in the club, you’re not even allowed to question it.
I’ve often thought that if we locked a dozen or so physicist in a room, told them to forget everything they thought they knew about the universe, and come out with a knew paradigm, we’d be better off. We’re so locked into archaic thinking. That’s not the way it works, is it? Scientists work in isolation, independently from one another. Everyone building there own unique paradigm of how some individual property of the universe works, or the entire universe works. There is no collaboration. They expect collaboration to occur at the peer review process, but what we end up with a few more pieces to the puzzle thrown into the heap of mostly useless nonsense. Everyone is right on some level, but I think there’s a lot more wrong mixed in with the right.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by
-
Group think is an interesting topic. COVID was an amazing display of group think. We kept hearing, follow the science. My question was always, which science are we following? Economics? Biology? Medical? Pharmaceutical? Political? Physics?
We seemed to be following whatever science fit the narrative of the day, because there was no such thing as COVID science. That’s going to take years to figure out.
-
“Your contribution was very interesting although you did not say so much about physics.”
Interesting…
Actually, I said a whole lot in a condensed space. Yes, there was an abundance of philosophy in the context, but its all relevant to progress.
I suggested the universe was absolute. That’s not only a big leap from conventional ideology, it’s a whole new paradigm if you look closely at what I said in the final few paragraphs.
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
[-e] – [+e] = [0]
[0] < ∞ < [1]
The maximum state of the universe is [1]. The minimum state of the universe is [0]. The universe we exist in is ∞.
What does that say about our current understanding of infinity?
It’s completely wrong.
The universe is not physically endless in extent, it is physically changing in extent from two ends over time. It’s net change is [0].
I read an article on Einstein’s lost Theory, which was basically GR without a big bang.
Here’s a link to the article and a little clip for me to expand on.
“But his math was better than he wanted to
believe — his equations told him that the universe could not stay
static: It had to either expand or contract. Einstein chose to ignore what his mathematics was telling him.”I consider this a key divergence in human reasoning and our quest for real answers. Back then the common dogma was steady state. His math appeared to contradict the accepted beliefs of the time, so he added lambda to force the universe into a steady state. Then Hubble came along with an observation indicating the universe was expanding. Had Einstein not tried to force his math to fit the accepted dogma, he could have made a prediction. He was mad at himself apparently. Still, that is somewhat deceiving and inaccurate. Einstein only had a 50/50 chance of making a prediction, because his math clearly stated there was no preference to expansion or contraction. Predicting expansion would have been a best guess in matching the observation, nothing more. It would have been luck.
And that’s where science took a hard left into theology and the Big Bang.
The assumption was that the universe had to expand OR contract. It couldn’t do both.
My independent reasoning has led me to a different conclusion. Our universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously for a net gain of [0]. That’s what it does, giving us the illusion of a beginning and end. Everything we observe definitely had a beginning, and everything we observe will definitely come to an end. That’s true, but the total universe will happily soldier on without us, endlessly expanding and contracting at the same time.
Matter contracts, space expands.
Matter is already traveling at C inwards, and space is expanding outwards at C in the opposite direction. e=mc^2. Energy doesn’t exist without motion.
We don’t necessarily move as we think we do, we alter course from our existing motion. And that’s what mass is all about. Lateral motion is converting contracting energy into expansive energy. Any direction we move laterally occurs in the outward direction. The more at rest we appear the more inward we are moving. We don’t create motion, we exploit motion inherent in the process.
Energy is derived from the motion of space. The entire universe is moving in opposite directions. I suspect the creation of matter occurs on the outer perimeter, then cascades inward at a constant rate. The dissipation of energy occurs at the bottom end, deep inside matter. The universe is just continually recycling itself in a loop.
Is there aether? Probably. Little tiny particles transforming into expansive energy.
The universe is in constant motion.
from 1—>0, and from 0—>1. Trading places more or less.
Net result, 0 change. We ride a wave of creation down to 0.
Time expands and contracts with motion.
The finite universe which will never occur, or [1] space, represents [1] time, [1] motion, [1] energy. It’s a frozen state of the universe. If it ever reached that point I seriously doubt it could ever change. It will have reached a finite maximum state or equilibrium of force. For whatever reason, [1] is an unstable state. It cannot sustain. And that’s why we’re here.
But, right or wrong doesn’t matter a whole lot, does it?
I have no value to bring o the table.
-
One last point I’d like to add that seems relevant. Collaboration dilutes compensation, and compensation spawns innovation. Sort of a contradictory state of science. Collaboration by its nature only occurs out of necessity, typically. Collaboration is generally limited in extent due to the economics of a given problem.
-
First, it’s important to note that I am not a scientist or physicist. I have no math skills and no training in the field. Frankly, I’ve never stepped foot in physics classroom, nor read a theory cover to cover. Glenn Borchardt’s, Scientific Worldview, is the only science book I’ve read (on audio) cover to cover.
I have been doing this for the better part of my life, and I see value in it. I see truths. Without going into the processes I have used the past 35+ years, my methods are completely unconventional, but they work for me. I’m using the only tool I have in my toolbox, my brain.
So, whatever value you might gain from my input is not known, if any.
The first thing to do is toss in the garbage nearly everything we think we know about the universe. Then wheel up a new blackboard and grab a fresh piece of chalk in your right hand, and an eraser in your left. If you’re left-handed, well, you know what to do.
As I see it, science is stuck in the middle looking out. There are two very specific and distinct directions they are looking for answers, inward and outward. That alone is a problem, because, 0 < ∞ < 1. They cannot get to the two ends from the middle. It is physically impossible. The ultimate answer as to what is going on is perpetually out of reach. As a result, we assume the middle holds the key in understanding the ends. It does not. It cannot.
Science does not look for answers, believe it or not, because all the answers already exist. Once you know an answer it’s usually very simple to understand. As the old sayings go, hindsight is 20/20, or Monday morning quarter backing. Everyone in the scientific community and the world at large, assumes complexity, but simplicity rules the universe. Identifying the problem is the hard part.
Like I said though, science does not look for answers. Science is looking for the problem that led to the existing answers. If they can do that science can produce something useful, whether it’s some cool new invention, or publishing an elaborate theory for peer review. Either way, both signify an inherent value to individuals and companies working the problem. That value is fame and fortune at various levels of compensation, depending on the significance of either.
That’s where cooperation and collaboration break down. Science is not designed for cooperation or collaboration underneath it’s altruistic facade. Scientists work in guarded secrecy until they develop a useful and repeatable outcome or elaborate theories. And they probably either patent or copyright anything they develop before going public for protection. Going public is an epic moment. All eyes are on the creators. Boom or bust?
That’s how real science works. It’s driven by grants, donations, fame, products, and fortune. All valuable commodities worthy of protection. And there’s nothing wrong with that on many levels. Money is how we survive.
It does make the problems exponentially more complicated to solve though, and that’s the rub. Science works in isolation.
As frustrating as it may be at times, a lack of cooperation or collaboration is perfectly normal human behavior. It is to be expected, unfortunately.
I started from the opposite ends, figuring that would require the least math and physics. I’ve been slowly working my way to the middle for the past 35+ years. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose. This is not my day job. I’ve worked in the printing industry my entire life for the most part. I wouldn’t even know how to publish anything, let alone get it into an acceptable format for review. It would be laughable, I’m sure.
There was a handful of questions I had when I started. What are we made of? What animates everything? Why is everything in motion? What is motion? How big is the universe? What is energy?
The first thing to understand is that our existence is absolute. And that is paramount to our understanding of the universe. There is no such thing as positive and negative. Those things only exist in our minds. They’re nothing more than labels to identify opposing conditions. We can use positive and negative in communication to keep track of various conditions, but it’s not real. It is conceptual.
Next, throw out energy. It’s not a real thing. That’s how we experience and harness space and motion. We can talk energy for expediency, because it’s useful to do so in science. It’s a form of communication. But know that it’s not a physical reality. We are not made of energy. Energy is a label or concept.
Next, throw out 3-D. The universe is not 3-dimesional. It’s made up of hundreds of thousands of subdimension intersecting into states of reality. Reality being how we define the world around us. They’re all relevant. Some are more relevant than others in defining our physical reality. There is one physical dimension that defines existence, space. That’s a real dimension and a real physical ingredient. And there is one active dimension, motion. It too is a physically real dimension of reality. This is where a dimension of energy and a dimension of time is derived. They don’t exist physically; they are conceptual in nature. Energy is a way to express multiple intersecting dimensions in a real way. We can say everything is made of energy, but only in so far as, everything is made from a physical dimension of space in motion and will exist for a length of time. Time being a derivative of absolute motion, and motion being a derivative of absolute space.
There is an equivalency between positive and negative energy.
Thanks to Stephen Hawking I see that now.
He claimed that if you took the sum of all positive and negative energy, you end up with nothing, or 0. What Stephen Hawking didn’t understand, as no one else does apparently, our universe, and everything in it, is absolute. The sum of all energy does not equal 0, it equals [1]. Stephen Hawking was wrong, but it was legitimate reasoning.
e=.5 (half the energy in the universe)
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
And there is no difference between either form of energy.
[-e] – [+e] = [0]
And finally, we can draw a conclusion about energy.
[-e] = [+e]
There is physically no difference between the two states of energy, so one form of energy transforms into the other form of energy. How could there be a difference? It’s all derived from [1] thing.
So, the law of physics that states energy cannot be created or destroyed makes perfect sense now.
What could that [1] possibly represent?
Through deductive reasoning, all that remains is, Space, logically.
Space is the only physical ingredient remaining to build a universe. Energy cannot exist physically.
[0] would be the absence of space. That is an illogical condition. Space must exist, and that’s why we must exist. There is nothing else remaining logically.
We cannot think in terms of empty space. That’s false reasoning. It’s like calling a rock empty. Space itself is a thing. The only thing. A perfect continuous unbreakable but malleable object. Space defines existence. Space transforms into a comprehensible universe made of itself in various states.
I am not wrong, I am uncredentialed and insignificant to the process of science. There is no value in my solution or insight.
I can explain the universe all the way down to the potential aether, but certainty breaks down in my reasoning the closer I get to the middle. The ends are relatively easy to understand, because the problems are stupid simple. So simple in fact, that they would most likely be rejected by the scientific community as nonsense. All I can say to that is, prove it. The math is flawless. It’s as easy as 1+1=2. And it should be if you value the laws of physics. If we reverse entropy to its fundamental state, [1] should be the predictable result. Our universe is derived from fractions of the whole. Lots and lots of little pieces all connected to the whole.
I’ll leave it at this for now…
If you don’t want me to participate further, I understand.
-
I suppose another way to look at it is, things that don’t exist are unpredictable. Pointing out the blatantly obvious, I know. The closer to nonexistence a state becomes, the less predictable it becomes as a result. Quantum mechanics by its very nature plays on the edge of existence, hence, it is unpredictable, so they must use probabilities to describe it. It may not be a known variable issue, Quantum Mechanics proximity [0]. I always assumed it was a variable issue. Hmmm.
-
If an infinite universe is immeasurable , then all measurments are false
. Any portion of the universe is pseudo-finite or almost infinite . We
can distinguish portions in the universe because it is infinitly
heterogenous .To understand the universe is to understand the most fundamental principles of numbers. First, it’s very important to understand that numbers are an invention of mankind. Nothing more. Of paramount concern is how numbers translate or integrate with the universe. There is an apparent correlation to our numbering system and nature. Numbers are linear which allows us to perform mathematics that directly applies to the universe, and that in turn allows us to make mathematical predictions in nature. It’s that bound relationship between the universe, numbers, and mathematics which fascinates and perplexes us. It offers us the ability to understand our reality on a provable mathematical level. We can obtain empirical mathematical proofs. Understanding them in human terms is a whole other topic of discussion. There is no way to quantify what we think. And we most certainly have a huge problem formulating a consensus on what to think.
Simplicity is the key to understanding, and to understand the simplicity of the problem you must abandon our base 10 numbering system. It’s too many variables and only serves to add unnecessary levels of complexity to the problem.
The universe is elegant simplicity. Humans are complicated.
The first two fundamental variables in the universe are, |A| and |B|.
|A| = Nothing
|B| = Something
Nothing = |0|
Something = |1|
And that’s the beginning to understanding the problem. That’s the hook. It’s where I began trying to understand the problem more years ago than I care to admit.
Nothing is the opposite of something, or more importantly, the absence of something.
We can also look at it from a standpoint of a minimum and maximum state of the universe.
Logically there cannot be nothing less than nothing, or something greater than something.
|A|=|A|
|B|=|B|
It’s important to understand that I am also looking at these variables from an absolute standpoint. Something either exists, or it doesn’t. The universe itself either exists, or it doesn’t. Clearly it does exist, as our existence is empirical evidence to that fact. And while |B| exists, |A| cannot exist, and vice versa. They are opposites, so they cannot coexist in an absolute state. Universally speaking.
We can also claim, |A|<|B|, logically speaking.
That’s the most fundamental understanding of the universe and how numbers and mathematics relate to it. That’s the fundamentals of the universe, and not coincidentally, the fundamentals of numbers and mathematics.
It’s from that point we add complexity. And then the whole thing goes sideways in an abyss of controversy, theory, debate, ego, etc., etc., etc. Humans being humans.
The sum total of the universe = |1|, because it does not = |0|.
Our existence, though, is fractional. We’re the decimal points that lie between |0| and |1|. We are the, <, and > symbols, that view the universe from different vantage points, or frames, or perspectives. And what lies between |A| and |B| is ∞.
Infinity is the non-absolute state of the universe that lies between |0| and |1|. We can exist at 1 and cease to exist at 0. We are in a constant state of motion from B to A or A to B.
|A|<A<B<|B|
Infinity cannot exist without the limits of |A| and |B|, and vice versa. And it’s also important to understand that no two states can coexist.
The universe can only exist in one of 3 states.
|A|, ∞, |B|
Or
|A| < U < |B|
U = (A,B) = ∞
Measuring the universe is a matter of perspective. How big the universe is, is a matter of perspective, and that depends on what we’re using to measure the universe. If we consider the universe as a unit of measure unto itself, its value is always 1 at any given moment in time, but its absolute limit at any given moment in time is |0| or |1|.
Based on a meter, it’s a really big number of
little pieces that are all dependent on time and space. And that only has meaning at your particular moment
in time and space.-
This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by
-
“Can unending decimals like 0.333… and 0.999… be static unchanging things containing an actual infinity of digits?”
I think the simple answer is no. Mankind made up numbers, a fact that gets lost on human beings most of the time. There cannot be an infinity of any quantity in reality.
For example, could we claim there was an infinite number of apples in the universe? No, not really. But I think the real conundrum lies in the question, can there be a finite number of apples in the universe? The answer to that question is also no, believe it or not.
Think about it for a moment.
Even if we knew for a fact that apples only grow on Earth, the quantity of apples could never be defined as finite in the universe. They could however, be described as finite in time.
You can only describe the rate of change in the quantity of apples on earth, which is either rising, or falling. Freeze time and the number of apples becomes finite. Start time and the answer is no longer definable if finite terms. New apples are being created every day, and existing apples are being destroyed everyday.
The quantity of apples in the universe is always in a state of flux. There is not a finite number of apples in the universe, nor is there an infinite number of apples in the universe, because the real answer is time dependent.
I suppose you could have a condition where the number of apples being destroyed is equal to the number of apples being created, but that’s still a dynamic state of change and not really finite as far as individual apples are concerned.
The only way to have a finite number of apples in the universe is to stop time. And that, obviously, is impossible.
Digits suffer the same fate, because they don’t exist until we make them exist. After all, we invented numbers. They only exist in our imagination, and they don’t physically exist until we perform a calculation and can physically see them. We can obviously deduce an endless potential to generate numbers, but like an apple, we also know it is somewhat impossible to yield an infinite number of either. That answer is always time dependent.
We could say on Tuesday, March 8th, at precisely 3pm, there were exactly 183,723,232,102 apples, but that would be about it. Only if we had some means of instantaneously counting every single apple on Earth all at once. Not possible though, is it?
Same holds true for everything in the universe.
There is no such thing as an infinite quantity of anything in the universe, nor is there such thing as a finite quantity of anything in the universe.
Change is the constant.
What is infinity?
What is finite?
I don’t think anyone has a clue. We hold to colloquial meanings, and that’s not very scientific.
We cannot prove endlessness for the universe, nor can we prove a limit.
But, we do know 1 and 0 is a finite value. And mathematically speaking, our existence is the difference between something and nothing.
The question in my mind isn’t whether the universe is infinite or finite, it’s what does either mean? In my view, neither state is defined. Infinity certainly has nothing to do with quantities, anymore than finite. They describe the state of numbers. Static, versus dynamic values. Our universe is clearly observed as dynamic, not static.
-
Here’s what I know as fact.
If we remove all matter from the universe, we’re left with a geometrically undefinable state. The most we can say about that state geometrically is a point. That’s it.
In our reality, we detect points, one at a time, or on average. We can imagine a 2D geometric shape by connecting points, or we can imagine a 3D geometric shape connecting still more points.
What we can’t do is imagine pointless shapes. We need points for definition.
Everything we see and create is made of points of matter. Material science becomes equally relevant as the shape we’re creating in the real world. We can’t build a bridge in the tropics out of water, for example.
What is it that we’re really seeing?
Our brain is what creates shapes out of countless points. About 7 octillion points for a human being, give or take a few septillion I’m sure. We mentally fill in the blanks and contour the gaps with imaginary lines. The fundamental universe without matter is a single point, geometrically and mathematically. It’s value can only be describes as [1].
We cannot see matter-less space, we see matter. We experience these points of matter through collision. We do not know what they’re made of, but as I suggest, they’re made from dimensionless space.
In the end, I can’t say if geometry is a mental construct, or physical reality. We can certainly build things we interpret physically and visually as geometric shapes, but those shapes are nothing more than an amalgamation of unknown and undefined points of matter. And we know whatever we build will eventually transform into something else long after we’re dead and buried.
-
“Your intuitive interpretation of geometry leads you to oversimplify what physical reality is, you mix the 3 dimensions and time without giving it a unique and repeatable representation and this leads to an underlying uncertainty in your representation.”
Or maybe, just maybe, physical reality isn’t as complicated as we like to imagine it is. Assuming simplicity is no different than assuming complexity. Odds are certainly against me, but entropy increases over time. I’m looking at the universe from the potential starting point, before entropy and looking in. Science is looking backwards in two directions outward through the weeds. They assume complexity because they’re buried in complexity. Because we’re bound to mathematical behavior, we also must be bound to numeric order. The first number from our perspective is 0. That’s the way we think. I’m at rest, then hit the gas and speed to 60mph. The universe though, can’t start at 0. Something cannot come from nothing, it comes from something else. That’s what we observe, and that’s what physics tells us. Energy transforms. Our reality starts with 1 and moves to 0. 0 is the end of the line for states of matter. Our human existence in particular.
If you listen to what people suggest here, energy is motion. e=mc^2 is a motion formula. I consider this a correct interpretation of energy. We are not made of energy. Energy does not exist technically, it is derived from our inherent motion.
A thought just hit me.
We cannot create or destroy energy, according to the laws of physics.
If energy is derived from motion, then this begins to add further evidence to my assertion that motion is inherent in matter. Matter is already traveling at C inward is my basic assertion. Outward motion reduces the inward motion, outward being observed omnidirectional motion. The more at rest, the more inward we move. If we cannot create or destroy energy, then we cannot create or destroy motion either. That means, we can only transform motion through a change of direction, and that’s it. I also assert motion is 1-dimensional, and is only possible in the inward and outward direction, because that is the way the universe is oriented. We are derived from 1-dimension, not 3D. 3D space is how we perceive reality, not necessarily the underlying physical reality.
This is following the laws of physics.
-
Your native language works great in the translator! Just do that moving forward. I think it reads better.
And never worry about offending me either.
I’m at work so this is going to be a quick response, but I will elaborate further when I find time.
Where I’ve gone is a precursor to mathematics and geometry. It’s the fundamental universe. Back to square one basically. The meaning of 0 and 1. Not much math or geometry to be had there. I stand as much of a chance figuring that out as anyone else in the world. The problem is, nobody cares much about it. Science has moved on to self interest. They found they could exploit the universe for monetary gain, either through products or information. No one is paying attention.
Go back to what Stephen Hawking said.
(-e) + (+e) = 0
Now go back to what I’m suggesting, that our universe is absolute.
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
[1] is the fundamental point of existence. Science would consider that POINT empty space. Logically that must be false, because space we exist in is defined by points of matter. A matter-less universe is only equal to itself, relative to itself, and compared to itself, mathematically and geometrically. No matter, no dimension, no comprehensible universe for us to exist within. It is NOT empty space. [1] is a dimensionless point. There is no geometry or math, just pure dumb logic.
Space either exists:
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
Or it doesn’t:
[-e] – [+e] = [0]
Existence is 1-dimensional:
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We exist between the potential for space to be [1] thing, and nothing. It’s a potential that can never be realized because we exist as empirical evidence to that fact.
our universe = ∞
[1] and [0] is where mathematics and geometry begins and ends, which makes sense. Two ends against the middle.
The universe has never began or ended.
Think about it…
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 2 years ago by
-
e = 1/2 the total energy of the universe.
Site wouldn’t let me edit my post.
-
No, I hadn’t read it.
I was watching some geese that had landed in my backyard. They had about 8 babies. One of the babies had an injury. I was impressed how the geese were taking care of it for a couple of weeks. Until one day they left it behind to fend for itself. Not sure what happened to it ultimately, but I’m guessing a Fox ate it. There’s safety in numbers.
Human’s are animals. Like the geese we gather in groups. Humans are bit more socially complex due to our ability to communicate and share ideology. For geese it’s very simply fight or flight ideology. The wounded baby was putting the flock at risk, because it attracts predators. They left it to die.
Ideology is what binds us together in groups. We aren’t afraid to give up old ideas, we’re down right terrified. No one willingly diverges from the group ideology without an exit strategy. Mostly anyway. Maybe they convince a portion of the group that their ideology is better or more right, and then they break off. Their has to be something in it for them that benefits themselves and the group. Our baser instincts bind us together. Right or wrong has almost no relevance. The pillars of physics has made our lives exponentially better, but it really doesn’t say much about the universe. No one gives a shit, because the safer group is the bigger group.
If you found a way to harness your ideas and build a device to defy gravity based on those ideas, then you have something of value to build on and create a new group. Until then, there is safety in numbers. Right or wrong does not apply. The group they’re in is doing fine.
Diverge from the group and parish.
Science is ruthless…
-
And there is a subtle irony to all this. Human reasoning and logic is the only way we can understand the universe, where consensus seldom leads to an understanding about anything. History has proven that fact amply time and time again. We tried to execute Galileo, and ultimately forced him to recant facts of nature because it didn’t conform to a commonly accepted consensus about the universe. Right or wrong wasn’t applicable. Science is more about squashing old and tired consensus, rather than adhering to reason and logic, and actual facts in many cases. That’s a truth of humanity.
-
Thank you for the reply Marco. It’s always good to talk things out.
Our reality is definitely a complicated mathematical mess. For sure. But in my view, where this all comes from should be simple, because the only physical ingredient in existence is space. If we reduce all the matter in the universe by combining it into one thing, [-e]+[+e], we’re left with a value of [1], which now represents motionless space. There’s no math left to describe empty space. If we remove space, [-e]-[+e], we’re left with nothing, [0], and there’s no math left to describe nothing.
[0] and [1] is the fundamental universe, numerically and mathematically speaking. And obviously these are simply tools in human reasoning.
We invented numbers by dividing the space between 0 and 1 into 10 pieces and shifting the decimal place to the right. A nod to our 10 fingers or digit. And we did this more so for commerce, NOT science. I don’t think we have really stopped to see the difference, because it has given us some pretty remarkable results. Still, it wasn’t designed for science. We’re missing something.
And so math begins.
My objection to Cantor is the use of the term infinity, which has nothing to do with specific values of numbers. The highest translatable numeric set as applied to reality is ([0],[1]). That’s it.
That means the highest countable number as far as the universe is concerned is [1], and the lowest, [0].
If you Google the definition of infinity, this is what you get.
Infinity
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)
Clearly the accepted mathematical definition was driven by Cantors work. We attempt to describe the universe as infinite or finite. As near as I can tell, no one throughout history has stopped to understand the implications of those meanings as applied to math or reality.
In Cantors day, our universe was a steady state, meaning it was endless in extent. Cantor was searching for god in the numbers. He was on a religious quest, not a scientific one. He believed god was the Omega infinity, something unimaginably and incomprehensibly greater than our numbers and math were capable of expressing.
And understand, I am not knocking religion. Whatever someone chooses to believe or not believe is their own personal choice. At the end of the day, whatever gets you through from point A to point B ([1] to [0]) as comfortably and happily as possible is what matters most.
My objection to Cantors work is the premise of his work. Set theory is certainly useful, but it has nothing to do with finite and infinite states of reality. [0].
My work, if you want to call it that, explores the human side of the equations. Every theory requires human reasoning and logic to define it. Scientists tend to win the right of explanation through a peer reviewed consensus process. The more people that like a theory, the more accepted it becomes. Right or wrong doesn’t necessarily apply. The more people believe a theory is right, the more right it becomes over time in society as a whole, and the harder it becomes to seek out our true reality. We used to execute scientists. It then becomes a pseudo fact in the education of others. It is the exact same process in religion. Humans believe in the chain of custody in words spoken by mankind, as long as the words gain acceptance en masse. Consensus rules science, not reason and logic necessarily. And that’s a fact.