Is Number a Causal Element?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:36 pm

Is Number a Causal Element?

"The Neoplatonist Iamblichus…stated that the causal approach to nature consisted "in posting mathematical things as causes" from which the objects in the perceptible world arise. He subscribed to the Pythagorean belief that only what was possible in mathematics was possible in the structure of nature, and that nothing could exist that implied a mathematical impossibility." (Leonessi)

An extension of this dimension would be that logic is the symmetry to causality with only what as possible in logic is possible in the structure of nature, and that nothing can exist that implies a logical impossibility.

The question occurs however, as numbers and logistics propagate themselves into infinity what is not possible?

Another appropriate question would be to ask: If 1, the point, and the line are causal elements of logistics, Do they manifest as effectual elements (or complexes/approximates) that equivocate to n1n, the particle, and the wave?

"Nowadays, we think of number as a sign to denote a specific amount or quantity. We use numbers as tokens to represent things. The Pythagoreans saw number as a universal principle, such as light or electromagnetism or sound. As modern physics has
demonstrated, it is precisely the numeric, vibrational frequency or wavelength of electromagnetic energy that determines is particular manifestation." (Leonessi)

Can we not view logic in the same way as: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God?” (AZ)

For what came first, the letter or the number?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:29 pm

Equating numbers with electromagnetism is fundamentally wrong because they only exist as abstract entities where as electromagnetism is an observable phenomena. The frequency or wavelength of electromagnetic energy might be expressed in mathematical language but the energy
itself is still physical. All objects can be referenced mathematically but this does not make them mathematical in and of themselves since the
physical and the mathematical are completely separate categories. The Universe is not a mathematical construct like Max Tegmark thinks it is

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:29 pm
Equating numbers with electromagnetism is fundamentally wrong because they only exist as abstract entities where as electromagnetism is an observable phenomena.

Actually it is only observable through tools which approximates its nature. Putting two magnets together and pulling them apart so that they move back together only observes the movement of the magnets...you are not seeing the waves in and of themselves.



The frequency or wavelength of electromagnetic energy might be expressed in mathematical language but the energy
itself is still physical. All objects can be referenced mathematically but this does not make them mathematical in and of themselves since the
physical and the mathematical are completely separate categories.
What we understand of number manifests through empirical reality as much as abstract reality, and in these respect as a median it maintains a degree of physicality. Considering particle waves, at their root are composed of points and lines, to equate number (through dimensionality) as point and line implies a physical nature inherent within it.

You claim physical reality and mathematical realities are separate categories, but categories in themselves are abstract measurements and how can you equate physical reality to a category and deny the same for number?


The Universe is not a mathematical construct like Max Tegmark thinks it is
Prove it.

osgart
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by osgart » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:54 am

What about amorphous relationships and the rates of change in a given property of reality mathematically described?

Are there synergies?

Are there concepts in reality that don't have mathematical operators?

Everybody has seen math problems that where there is one true logical answer, people mess up the procedures, and get totally different wrong answers. Does nature always follow logic. Maybe nature can operate on those wrong answer ways.

Maybe where one would subtract nature throws it all in an opposing direction.

Anyway I'm dreaming.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:27 pm

osgart wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:54 am
What about amorphous relationships and the rates of change in a given property of reality mathematically described?

Amorphous relationships, as a form of approximation, still observe specific characteristics in the respected that while the relationship may not be fully defined Point A is still connected to Point B, with both points still being the observable factors with the relationship.

With amorphous simply being the observation of something not "fully defined" there is still a degree of order, hence the approximate nature. All problems in these respects can be viewed as approximates, with the approximation merely being a connection between causes.





Are there synergies?

Well lets look at it this way.

We will equate all realities to be equivalent to 1d linear movements, with these movements in themselves being both composed of a particles and composing particles as further linear relations.

The 1d line exists as number inseparable from space, we observe this intuitively through 1, across many cultures, dependent on a linear mark.

So to begin our thought experiment.

Everything we understand of time is rooted in a 1d line (1) extending into a 0d space (0) ad-infinitum. Now the 1d line cannot extending into a 0 space ad-infinitum considering there is nowhere to go. So the line, if it is to extend ad-infinitum, must fold in upon itself in order to relate. The 1d folds upon itself, through the 0d space, with this folding creating two lines.

Now this folding, resulting in two lines (as an angle), are simply lines connected through a 0d point which we observe as the apex of the angle. In these respects the 0d point is strictly and an extension of the 0d field and what we observe as points in turn exist as fields.

Now these two lines, considering they must extend ad-finitum continually fold (or halve) themselves perpetually.

This is considering the zero dimensional point, which connects them acts simultaneously as a field much in the first manner we see in the first line.

These lines continually halve through the 0d point which is a common mediator amidst all the lines. Time and Size begin to take place as these linear relations form the foundation of time as the relation of movements and size following the same format. Time does not exist unless observing the relation of movements. Size cannot be observed unless one thing is relative to another, with both "things" in themselves constantly moving. So time and size are inseparable in these respects.

Now, as we progress further through the movements, we observe a branching effect of linear relations with these branches "appearing" to extend further and further away from eachother in one respect. While one branch, "A", maybe seperated from another branch "E", because of branches "B","C" and "D", in reality they are not. This is considering both "A" and "E" are connected through the same "0d" point-field that causes their individuation to begin with.

"A" and "E" may be proportional through the inherent number of seperations, through the 0d point, with this number of seperations being the foundation for there relative size and qualitative proportional nature. Because "A" and "E" are proportional, through the 0d point, what may happen to "A" must also happen to "E" through the 0d point-field.

So while we observe "A" and think it is not only alone, but also amorphous relative to "B" and "C", in reality we cannot observe "E". "E" being proportional due to the linear "halving" in itself extending to a further linear dimension which forms the branches themselves as extending only linearly relative to other branches. In simpler terms, what we observe as non-linear movements, are linear movements relative to other dimensions...and the halving process continues while maintain a connection through the 0d point field.


These branches as composed of continual halving through a "Y" effect, provides the foundation for frequencies as multiple angles (relating 1d lines) when observed from a perspective linear relations. Take for example observing a tree, we see this "Y" effect form in an apparently curved or "circular" fashion when we take into account all the branches relative to eachother. However if we walk through an orchard, these "curves" actually form a lines as one tree then another then another.

If we take all these "Y"'s which composed the foundation for the branches and viewed them in 1 dimensional line, we observe "frequency" as a byproduct with the dualistic alternating 1d lines (with alternation being a form of halving through folding we see in the example of the original line) being the foundation of movement seperating the 1d space into +2d space as movement. This may appear confusing, so in simpler terms:

The frequencies, or even "strings" if you want to call them that, are composed of 1d lines (number as space) continually folding and halving through a 0d point-field in which 1 as a 1d line as unit, must relate to further 1d lines as units, in order to exist in the 0d field.



With the invention of quantum computing, I believe we are inevitably stuck with defined numbers not only in spatial terms but fundamentally as extensions of space itself. In memory serves correctly, and you may want to do the research for yourself, certain physicists, mathematician/logician and computer engineers are looking for physical constructs (ie, frequencies) which are inseperable from number.

Research this fact for yourself however, I am going off of memory. However the logic seems sound as if number is rooted in dimensions (such as thought or consciousness being a dimension of both physical reality and/or a higher dimension, spiritual one) number may be a multi-dimensional entity.


Are there concepts in reality that don't have mathematical operators?

Considering the premise of a reality summating itself (addition) in a unity or being seperating (subtraction, multiplication, division) into units and these operators of arithmetic are the premise for all further mathematical operators can they be entirely seperated?

Everybody has seen math problems that where there is one true logical answer, people mess up the procedures, and get totally different wrong answers. Does nature always follow logic. Maybe nature can operate on those wrong answer ways.



If you look at where the "step" was messed up, you can also observe the equation branching to another answer that while "wrong" relative to the original premise may follow a another like of logic starting with the "mess up". In these respects the beginning "change", ie "mess up", acts as a causal point for further logistic structure.



Maybe where one would subtract nature throws it all in an opposing direction.
Anyway I'm dreaming.

osgart
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by osgart » Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:13 am

So everything passes through a point of a field, 0d. And this 1d linear is relative motion to the point. A B C D and E are instantiations that together through the point constitute time elapsing.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by dimensionality. How many total dimensions are there, and how do they differ?

It's almost as if you are inventing space itself, how everything takes on new dimension through the 0d. With your folding process and how it summates new dimensions. And everything is relative with respect to the linear.

I'm not sure if I am to take this as abstract or tangible.

When I see 3 dimensional space , I perceive nothing takes on tangibility without the third dimension. Like writing on a piece of paper is mostly 2d, except for the thickness of the ink and paper, making it tangible with the third dimension.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:32 pm

osgart wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:13 am
So everything passes through a point of a field, 0d. And this 1d linear is relative motion to the point. A B C D and E are instantiations that together through the point constitute time elapsing.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by dimensionality. How many total dimensions are there, and how do they differ?
Totally? Infinite as extensions of a 1d space in which everything is viewed as one moment. In these respects both 1 and infinity are proportional, however I still developing the math for it.

Infinity would exist not only as a preliminary space that provides the foundation for "unit as never changing consistency" but from a perspective of 1d perspective also acts as another "field" in which pure 1d space acts as a point (which in itself has an inseperable role as a field also.

You have to keep in mind, and you can observe this in the single geometric circle as strictly being a point mirroring itself through linear dimensions, that each dimension as an extension of 1 it itself is conducive to 1. In simpler terms the "point" as pure space, acts like a glue conducive to an ether.

Temporally however? I am in agreement with the string theorists, from a seperate angle (or perspective), that at minimum it is 10. Most likely 12 to 13. However time, considering it is founded in alternation linear dimensions conducive to a circularity, must cycle through itself. In simpler terms, time zones as what the ancients might call "ages" must circulate through themselves and cancel themselves out. This canceling, in turn creates the necessary vaccum for another time zone to appear. These time zones, in theory, would have their own physics each time and in theory each 'cycle" would have its own new "physics" which may change only by a fraction of 1/n→∞ .

Their may in theory, and this is the most logical answer I can observe as of yet, may be infinite number of time zones.

Think of time cycle, or age, like a grape on a vine in the middle of a vine field.



It's almost as if you are inventing space itself, how everything takes on new dimension through the 0d. With your folding process and how it summates new dimensions. And everything is relative with respect to the linear.

I'm not sure if I am to take this as abstract or tangible.

Both, considering what we understand of the "line" as a phenomena cannot be seperated from either. Remember, space is a binding median between dimensions...even imaginary ones of "physical" and "abstract".

When I see 3 dimensional space , I perceive nothing takes on tangibility without the third dimension. Like writing on a piece of paper is mostly 2d, except for the thickness of the ink and paper, making it tangible with the third dimension.

odysseus
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

Re: Is Number a Causal Element?

Post by odysseus » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:18 pm

Of course number is a causal element. The question is, what is causality? Once you realize you don't know this, then this obviates mind body matters altogether. Such questions manufacture issues out of nothing since they presuppose conditions that are ill defined in the first place.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests