What is proven in science?

[wtf]

In reality, as I argue, I do not believe number and space are separate

Number and space. The discrete and the continuous. That's the question, all right. And I agree that their integration is key to the mystery of the world.

and a metaphysics based upon this unification would provide a logical foundation from which religion, science and ethics may have a strong foundational point.

Science would be greatly improved. We'd finally understand whether the Planck limits are because nature really is that way; or whether that's just a limitation of our ability to measure. Again, the discrete and the continuous.

Religion and ethics, I don't know. You could know the nature of the universe yet still do wrong to your fellow man. After all, what would change about human nature if we had metaphysical knowledge? It would be like Adam and Eve. When they obtained knowledge, things only got worse.

Me I'm grabbin' my fig leaf.

[Eodnhoj7]

In reality, as I argue, I do not believe number and space are separate

Number and space. The discrete and the continuous. That's the question, all right. And I agree that their integration is key to the mystery of the world.

and a metaphysics based upon this unification would provide a logical foundation from which religion, science and ethics may have a strong foundational point.

Science would be greatly improved. We'd finally understand whether the Planck limits are because nature really is that way; or whether that's just a limitation of our ability to measure. Again, the discrete and the continuous.

You read my mind on the Plank limits, it is a struggle I am currently dealing with philosophically right now. I don't really have a logical argument for or against it yet, and plan to take some time off philosophy for awhile to rebalance myself, so I don't know when I will find the answer.

However with that being said; the planck limit might literally be a result of the angle we are looking at it.

Take the nine-point problem, you have nine-dots that must be connected using four lines or less.
http://www.archimedes-lab.org/How_to_Solve/9_dots.html

You cannot lift the pen, or repeat any of the lines.
Looking at solution 3, their is the "3 line solution", where you extend the lines past the point of origin that that the each row fits within a preceding angle. The longer the line, the relatively smaller the 9-dot figure gets to the line until each row fits in the line of the angle. From a closer up perspective the figure is too large and one is reduced to using four lines with 3-5 angles (depending on whether you consider it a tracing of the movement or the totatility of the structure) With the increase in angles comes an increase in relative expansion, where the figure, due to the angle which bind is large.

The three line approach, observes the condensation of space when a...how to word it..."sharper" (?) angle is used. Relative to the lines and condensing angulature, the 9-dot figure shrinks, hence its dimensionality increases as less cooridinates are used to identify it. In these respects angulature causes a condensation of space, which in theory would cause energy in in the locality to alternatively expand to maintain a balance.

Observing the 4 line solution observes the lines as 3 lines with 2 1/3 points (3 lines extend from one point) and one line with 3 points. Each line is less dense< (number of 0d points individuating it) then the 3 lines of the three point solution. With an increase in angulature comes an increase in the density of the lines (lines composed of other lines), with this increase in density "implying" (emphasis on imply) an increase in potential energy as each line in turn would manifest further lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box

In theory, and we can observe this possible interpretation in old testament scriptures in the tower of babel or the ion emission of some pyramid structures, if one where to building an angle of such a degree of finite precision in theory it would curve the surrounding frequencies around it and redirected them. Now to get back to my point about the Planck constant, it may exists that way because of the "angle" we looked at it.





According to the "lines and number as unit-particulate" argument (and this may be difficult to explain without a graph), an angle of lets' say 50 degrees continually will refolding itself through further frequencies. These frequencies will get denser and denser, until the angle which forms the frequency may in fact exist inside one of the degrees of the fifty degree angle. The angles, however are still "proportional" and never in theory change, yet what defines one angle as 50 degrees the other can fit inside the degree itself. So in theory one could "argue" that the smallest of the angles is still 50 degrees, and the larger and still proportional one "expands" to n*(50) degrees, where "n" observes the proportional nature of the degrees expanding the degrees of the larger angle.

Hence with angular condensation comes angular expansion....that is one possibility.

Another is that the smaller of the angles actually forms the foundation for "degree as rotational curvature", and with the greater degree of condensing of the one angle, the greater the potential energy of the other as the "expanding" angle. So what may be the foundation for the "degree" is rotation through expansion and contraction.






Religion and ethics, I don't know. You could know the nature of the universe yet still do wrong to your fellow man. After all, what would change about human nature if we had metaphysical knowledge? It would be like Adam and Eve. When they obtained knowledge, things only got worse.

Best case scenario it changes man's behavior for the better and an era of peace comes. Worse case scenario, and most likely, it will usher an age of full blown corruption because man will not be able to handle the knowledge. In turn the Creator destroys and restarts everything a new.

It's a win win, for me, because either way the expansion of knowledge puts an end to our times.

Me I'm grabbin' my fig leaf.