Math and reality

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Math and reality

Post by QuantumT »

Greta wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:39 am The same could be said before other emergences - of life, of multicellular life, of trilobites and dinosaurs. Each stage might have been thought of as the point of the game, with considerable loading too.
True dat! "They" could have made adjustments many times. I actually consider that to be the most probable scenario. But nomather now "they" reached the current status quo, there is another thing I find much more intriguing: The 11 dimensions of string theory (10d + time).

We can observe 3d easely, 4d can be confusing, and with 5d, our brains start to sweat. "They" appear to have a 10d perception! (Why elso would they make the universe in 10d?). Imagine that! They view us as 10 dimensional holograms! They can see our insides in great details! Spooky! :mrgreen:
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Math and reality

Post by QuantumT »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:01 pm It appears similar to some of the topics I have argued:


Do Points (0d) Act as Fields?
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtop ... 39&t=34300

Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-Particulate (Because of 0d Point)?
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 26&t=23610

Relativity, Negation, and Atomism
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=23043
Thanks for your interesting contributions, but when things get to that degree of technical advancement, I need to read it in my own language. Do you have links that explains it more simple? Wikipedia articles maybe?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Math and reality

Post by Greta »

QuantumT wrote: Thu May 03, 2018 5:24 pm
Greta wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:39 am The same could be said before other emergences - of life, of multicellular life, of trilobites and dinosaurs. Each stage might have been thought of as the point of the game, with considerable loading too.
True dat! "They" could have made adjustments many times. I actually consider that to be the most probable scenario. But nomather now "they" reached the current status quo, there is another thing I find much more intriguing: The 11 dimensions of string theory (10d + time).

We can observe 3d easely, 4d can be confusing, and with 5d, our brains start to sweat. "They" appear to have a 10d perception! (Why elso would they make the universe in 10d?). Imagine that! They view us as 10 dimensional holograms! They can see our insides in great details! Spooky! :mrgreen:
I take it you have watched the Rob Bryanton videos :)
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Math and reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

QuantumT wrote: Thu May 03, 2018 5:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:01 pm It appears similar to some of the topics I have argued:


Do Points (0d) Act as Fields?
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtop ... 39&t=34300


1) A 1d line extends between two 0d points.
2) These 0d points are both the same.
3) The 1d line exists with a 0d point field considering the same point at the beginning is the same at the end.
4) The 1d line cannot continually project in a 0d point-field considering the 1d line is "extradimensional" hence must project away from its origins. In simpler terms it must "relate" to some further dimension if it is to exist as a unit can only move relative to another unit.
5) The line as 1d must fold through itself to relate to itself, and the 0d point through which it extends acts simultaneously as a field.
6) The 0d point-field is observe through this folding of the 1d and is an observation of inversion through the 1d line.


Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-Particulate (Because of 0d Point)?
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 26&t=23610


1) A qualitative localities exist quantitatively as units because the direction of the unit, as "1", equates to the quantity. Quantity is the observation of direction where a unit is observed as finite, and this finiteness exists as a 1d linear extension through time. What is finite, or localized, projects in 1 direction; hence quantity and direction are inseparable.

2) The line as the basis of finite unit is inseparable from 1 and is the base spatial median of quantity and quality. Quantity and Quality, as dual concepts, are mediated through space.

3) The line as a spatial foundation for 1, exists through a process of folding through itself into frequencies which equivocate simultaneously to whole numbers and fractals, so what we understand of numbers exist through an inherent alternation of wholes and fractals which exist in relation to eachother.

4) These frequencies, which compose reality yet are universal under the term "alternation", exist as fractals relative to the original 1d line and as whole numbers relative to themselves.





Relativity, Negation, and Atomism
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=23043

1) Relativity is dependent upon a relation of parts.
2) These parts must continual individuation, through multiplication and division, if they are to maintain their particulate nature.
3) This individuation however cause the particle to negate itself in a seperate respect because of this process of individuation which is similar to a process of atomism.
4) Relativity, in order to maintain movement through units must simultaneously negate these very same units hence a unit is strictly movement as change. Space, as the premise of being, is movement.


Thanks for your interesting contributions, but when things get to that degree of technical advancement, I need to read it in my own language. Do you have links that explains it more simple?
Hopefully the above will help, but keep in mind while this does mirror physics and math...it is metaphysics as the study of "being through being" hence a strict qualitative or quantitative interpretation (while necessary for definition) leads to contradiction on their own terms as one is dependent on the other.

Wikipedia articles maybe?

Unfortunately it is original.



They are arguments I have/am formulating for eventual publishing. Because we are dealing with a qualitative and quantitative understanding of reality a premise of "space" was used. This "space" provides the boundaries of both objective and subjective phenomenon and provides a universal definition for "measurement" in the respect we observe definitions through boundaries. This boundaries in themselves are spatial and extend through universal forms such as lines and points.

Space as an axiomatic premise, exists as the foundation and end of all boundaries or dimensions which give structure to reality. These boundaries in themselves are

Qualitatively the Line and the point are observed as the base universal forms which quantitatively are inseparable from 1 and 0 in the respect that their existence is one of direction. What we understand of a quantity is merely the measurement of a form which projects itself through space, hence quantification and direction are inseparable considering the direction of a movement is the boundary which gives it form.

For example the form of a square exists, as 1 unit in itself composed of 4 lines.

This square exists:

1) Because of its projection through space under a linear time line, hence the square as 1 form, composed of 4 base forms (the line), maintains a 1 dimensional status due to this very same projection.

A) All though the relations which form the square may inevitably change through time, with the square changing into a "not-square" form, the
square still projects for a finite period of time with this period of time in itself being a locality...hence the square is still a square as a locality
regardless of its length of localized projection.

2) The four lines, as fundamentally four directions, which form the square observes the square as having direction which forms further direction. So while the square as four lines directed into each other this relation of directions (4) in turn forms a new direction "1" when viewing the square as a finite locality. This finiteness, as that which is not infinite in the respect it is conducive to change through time, projects itself as 1 direction as a locality and in these respect maintains a quantity of 1 through its localized projection.

3) Locality is in itself a part of space hence gains its existence through its relations to other localities or parts. A locality is defined by its relations to further localities, hence the "locality" can be equivocated to a unit or more exactly (considering the problems of language) a "unit-particulate". These relations of unit-particulate exist through a process of individuation where their ability to divide or multiply into units allows the unit-particulate to exist through further relations as movement through direction.

4) The understandimg of "locality" as "unit-particulate" is conducive to "1 direction" composed of further "x directions" and maintains a probabilistic nature as a fractal relative to time. So the square as "1" through "4 lines" observes:

A) The square as an actual locality resulting in potential localities of the line: 4/1

B) The Lines as an actual locality resulting in potential localities of the square: 1/4
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Math and reality

Post by QuantumT »

Greta wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 12:47 am I take it you have watched the Rob Bryanton videos :)
Rob who? :?:
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Math and reality

Post by Greta »

QuantumT wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 10:25 pm
Greta wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 12:47 am I take it you have watched the Rob Bryanton videos :)
Rob who? :?:
Hah! They are a a tad simplistic and mechanistic but I think that is maybe a good thing when dealing with such mind-melting subject matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Math and reality

Post by QuantumT »

Greta wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:39 am Hah! They are a a tad simplistic and mechanistic but I think that is maybe a good thing when dealing with such mind-melting subject matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
Oh yeah, I know that video. Saw it many years ago, even before my explorations into QM.
It is, however, giving people a misperceptions of the 10 dimensions, in my opinion. It is dissecting them, rather than showing them.
Try going to google images, and write: 10 dimensional images
Then you will get a tiny glimpse of what I mean.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Math and reality

Post by Greta »

QuantumT wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:11 am
Greta wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:39 am Hah! They are a a tad simplistic and mechanistic but I think that is maybe a good thing when dealing with such mind-melting subject matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
Oh yeah, I know that video. Saw it many years ago, even before my explorations into QM.
It is, however, giving people a misperceptions of the 10 dimensions, in my opinion. It is dissecting them, rather than showing them.
Try going to google images, and write: 10 dimensional images
Then you will get a tiny glimpse of what I mean.
The knitting together of increasingly dense layers of information to give the appearance of solidity.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Math and reality

Post by QuantumT »

Greta wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 6:15 am The knitting together of increasingly dense layers of information to give the appearance of solidity.
Yes, something in that order.

There are two ways to simulate a complex reality.

1) You just simulate the surface and weight. This saves CPU power, but creates lagging, when the surface is broken, because more information is then required.

2) You simulate everything. That takes alot of CPU, but if you have sufficient of that, there will never be any lags.

I believe our reality is simulated as in option 2. Thus the 10 dimensions and quantum entanglement.
If it had been option 1, there would be no need for 10d or entanglement.
Post Reply