Does Math Evolve?

Yes I feel math evolves.

In the spirit of Marshal McLuhan I'll say, "The equation is the message".

I feel this topic is on par with the concept of a perfect Singularity, Zero-Point, a perfect Vacuum, an Isometric and Symmetrical Dimension, etc. etc. Things which can only exist in our minds or Cyberspace. It is our concepts and ideas expressed through writing and math which are not perfect but do actually exist through our creation.

I chose this topic to present my paper that I'm trying to officially introduce to the public because this thread is relevant and a cool subject. Please ignore my original first draft of my ideas in the thread titled "An Exceptionally Simple FAQ" because I have since rethought some basics and also had more ideas to include.

This is my final draft and I am hoping for pier review and would love to see what more I can contribute to this field if anyone would like to contact me.

I'm not much of a forum person so don't expect me to hang here and spam your ears off. I just want to get my ideas officially posted as a form of copywrite so that others can't steal my achievements.

Thank-you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

String Theory Proposal?

Part 1.

Hi. I need a distinguished scholar to represent me on my behalf since I am not a physics graduate and this is my first attempt at getting my work noticed. I've read and discovered, not surprisingly, that many people with their ideas have faced enormous criticism and ignoring because either the person strongly disagrees with their proposals or outright doesn't understand them. Please read my work and give me some advice. I hope you agree with my results and can help me present this to higher piers. I read a statement that something like only 2% of the world can grasp physics/string theory and from what I've seen I think this is not going to be easy. My goal ofcourse is to get my proposals to Stephen Hawking ,Lawrence Krauss, or Michio Kaku.

First, I want to relay some of my beliefs because it was my philosophys that steered my progress in physics and into my equations.

The most important philosophys are the first 3 because they are about my equations. I will add in some of my other beliefs also but I hope that if you don't agree with them that you won't become biased against my proposed equations because it has nothing to do with them:

1. I believe (even philosophically) that Zero-Point, a perfect Singularity, a perfect Vacuum, a perfect Superfluid, or a Symmetrical Dimension all do not exist. They would only exist in our minds/on paper (unless perhaps a Black hole is Symmetrical). These concepts would be similiar to a perfect Superfluid where there is zero Viscosity/Compression and therefore Time, Velocity, and Entropy etc. would not exist.

2. Zero and Infinity are the most problematic of concepts naturally. Even in medieval times people could have been put to death for merely discussing zero. We know the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle states, "Nothing can be measured perfectly" and that seems logical.

3.God is the only Quantum state. I feel God is suprarational and incomprehensible since the concept ofcourse cannot be fully understood. I am Agnostic so I believe in the possibility of god but not in a corpreal living entity. I am a STRICT monotheist/monist although since pantheism means "all" it could relatively mean the same thing.

4. I am long-time well known for stating that we live between the 4th Dimension (Time, Ether,Thought, Spirit, Dream State etc. etc. ) and the 5th Dimension (Quantum, Quintessence, Extra Sensory Perception, Intuition, Precognition etc. etc ). I felt justified when I came across a university of Oregon professors online tutorial of physics where he charted "possible existing" Dimensions and only the 4th and 5th were the most likely (you can look at the chart here; http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/dimensions.gif ). Ever heard of the song "Age of Aquarius" by a band called The 5th Dimension??

5. I strongly feel "free energy" or Overunity is impossible. I think the best we could ever possibly achieve is 99.9999~% efficiency

6. My long-time definition of Time is, "Time is the number of place-values in pi, phi, or any irrational number"

7. The rule of thumb is that Universes are made of Dimensions so my standard response is that we live in 1 Universe made of infinite Dimensions

8. I think the Casimir Effect is most likely due to the impurity of the Vacuum

9. I think the 2 Slit Experiment may be a smaller scale version of Gravitational Lensing. A form of diffraction perhaps caused by the slit or maybe the observer?

10. I think that the curious effect of a Superfluid crawling up along the sides of a beaker and out into the larger pool of Superfluid that is below the beaker is because the Superfluid that the beaker is positioned above most likely has a "field of influence" that radiates a bit higher than the height of the beaker due to its extremely high Symmetrical state which makes the Superfluid inside the beaker travel upward along the non-Symmetrical glass sides of the beaker to re-unite with the other Superfluid.

11. Since everything travels in Time at its own rate ... then Time Travel is relative so I think Time Travel is impossible in the "time machine" sense. Stephen Hawking does not believe in Time Travel so I don't. Its philosophically impossible and I feel its dangerous to believe in such a thing. Time Travel can only exist in cyber-space.

12. I do not believe in multi-verses at all except for maybe a theoretical Tachyon but again that can only exist in cyber-space and I refer to its physical manifestation as "Intuition".

13. I don't believe in a Big Bang. I believe in a Big Burp because we do not live in a static/finite Universe.

14. I believe Hugh Everetts "Many Worlds" interpretation is our closest conceptual understanding of the 5th dimension and Quantum reality. It is an illusionary reality equivalent to Zero-point, a perfect Singularity, A perfect Vacuum, a perfect Superfluid, a Symmetrical Dimension ... on par with Quantum reality, Intuition, Quintessence,Extra Sensory Perception, Precognition, etc. etc. In my mind, only a finite universe can be understood in the way that Quantum Mechanics or even Classical Mechanics attempts. Only in Cyberspace or on paper can we achieve the formulas that many people think we can create. We must simply accept the philosophical fact that man cannot recreate to perfection the natural laws of matter that truly govern and limit our mortal existence. We cannot know god and we cannot play god.

15. I support Technicolor theory since I do not feel a Higgs Boson will be found and Technicolor theory does require a Higgs Boson

16. I will forever stand by the Copenhagen Interpretation which is the insight that Quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality since measurement plays an ineradicable role. In my opinion, nothing can be described in reality via an equation or a complete mechanical model due to either Observer Effect, human error or simply unpredictable angular momentum.

My philosophys were formed by staples such as knowing what relative and esoteric mean. Chaos Theory and Occams Razor are fundamentals and the Pauli Exclusion Principle (non-duality) was a key factor in what I was working on. I have tried to create a Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical equation.

Technicalities:

I think the technicalities I face will be in the literal definitions of "Degrees of Freedom" and "Sample Space" that I use. I had an engaging time trying to name the variables but I feel I have used these definitions as best I possibly can. I considered using "Cells" instead of "Degrees of Freedom" but "Cells" can be any size so I felt the other label more appropriate for a Symmetrical and Isometric equation. Please know that even if I named a variable something and someone feels it should have another name, that it does not effect the equations! Even if the name of the variable might change (unlikely), the math will still be the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Equation:

I became fascinated with String Theory maybe 14 years ago when I was in my early 20's. At first, since the dodecahedron (12 sided) shape was made of spheres (12 spheres surrounding a centre sphere and so 13 spheres in total) and the religious significance of 12 tribes, 12 apostles, 12 houses of the zodiac, 12 hours etc., I thought it must be the obvious shape to analyze. I numbered the spheres 1 to 13 and added them up for a total of 91 and then divided by the 13 total spheres to get 7 ... because 7 is known as "the number of completion and perfection" in biblical lore, well I thought this may be significant but it was just a premature notion. I made an equation that simply read x=1/13y. I wanted y to be the total of all the 13 spheres added which was 91 but I was bothered that I could not put into the equation how I got the total sum of 91. I couldn't think of any way to show what I was doing so I just sat on the x=1/13y and left it at that. My interest in math/physics died as I moved onto other things but then maybe just for the last year I would browse the internet and read various things on physics WHEN I FINALLY CAME ACROSS IT ...

Sample Space ...

In Probability Theory, Sample Space is denoted as "S" or "omega" or "U"(for universe) and after reading it I saw that my process of adding all 13 spheres to sum 91 WAS LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF WHAT SAMPLE SPACE IS.

So ... now that I could label my one factor/variable as Sample Space ... I then realized I should give all the variables more appropriate names (Mean Mass, U(Sample Space), Degrees of Freedom) and thus my new equation would not just be for the single dodecahedron BUT COULD APPLY TO ANY LENGTH STRING OR ANY SIZE SPHERE (BECAUSE A SPHERE IS JUST A STRING WRAPPED AROUND ITS END-POINT) ... AND SO THIS FORMULA WOULD BECOME EMPIRICAL;

String Theory/Singularity/Zero-Point/Symmetry(/Superfluid?) Equation:

Mean Mass = sum U(Sample Space)/Degrees of Freedom

This equation works for ANY length string and ANY size sphere (thus, any N Dimension)! With the dodecahedron the Mean Mass is 7 ... but you can input any length string or size of sphere to get its Mean Mass and since its empirical, well, ask maybe 10 physicists if they think the pre-Big Bang universe was Symmetrical and I bet you atleast 8 or 9 say YES. Do you know what makes a magnet stronger? ALIGNMENT and POLARITY. Is this a Black hole equation? A Tachyon equation? Could our reality have formed from 1degrading Tachyon? This equation reflects a true Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical Dimension!!

I also wondered if we could find Supersymmetry in this?

In Supersymmetry, a Boson is given a correspondong superpartner Fermion but with a half spin ...

WELL, it does not matter how long the string (or how massive the sphere) is, because the numbers are aligned 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, .... etc. etc. etc. until however long (or big in the case of spheres) you want SO ...

So, could the "1 spin/field" be the Fermion to the "2 spin/field" Boson?

Or maybe is the "10 spin/field" Boson superpartnered with a "5 spin/field" Fermion???

Could you see how it might work?

Its a VERY complicated thing trying to visualize how the forces of nature occurred (Broken Symmetry) ... but I see pockets of Symmetry existing and either one Universe of Symmetry degraded into smaller pockets of Broken Symmetries OR perhaps there exists Symmetrical particles (Black holes) that create a Vacuum Expectation Value inbetween themselves?

BUT THERE'S MORE;

From this equation I have derived a theorem that I think could be the Pythagorean Theorem of the 21st century...

Symmetrical Singularity Theorem:

sum U/DOF = (DOF+1)/2

Ex. dodecahedron (but still works for ANY length string or ANY size sphere)

sum U/DOF=(DOF+1)/2

(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13)/13=(13+1)/2

91/13=(14)/2

7=7

Go ahead and test any length string or any size sphere ... ITS EMPIRICAL.

I feel that my equation is certainly a book-end equation with other equations which try to comprehend stellar mechanics. I feel that like how in algebra all we need to know is just one factor to find the other factor ... well in my equations I feel we could just need to know modern measurements and constants and compare them with an Isometric and Symmetrical model (my equations) and see the changes and how they differ and thus I think this may help us better understand things and make newer discoveries! THAT IS WHAT I TRULY FEEL. As far as applications go, I think maybe in stellar mechanics computer simulation models perhaps this could be used when seeking Symmetry Breaking experiments? I would love to know what other fields or areas of physics these may compliment or what new inspiration for some genius they could lead to.

(NEW EDIT) I have thought of more ways to prove my String Theory equations but its in a rough form. I discovered that under the Statistics definition of Degrees Of Freedom, that Degrees Of Freedom have been associated with squared lengths (or "Sum of Squares") and so I was always thinking my equation may well correlate into Einsteins Theory of Relativity and now here we see that Einsteins "C squared" quality COULD REPLACE THE VARIABLE I USED THAT I LABELED "DEGREES OF FREEDOM" ... basically I already said if we can find constants to plug into my equation that I would love to see if we would start finding known constants solved from my equation. I was hoping people could start fooling around with my equations and perhaps something familiar will be found and therefore confirm that my equation IS the String Theory Equation!

I want to add one more point ... it is actually frustrating not getting my theorys out yet when occasionally I will come across some random person on some physics forum or someone making comments on some physics article and the person will say something that literally deals with my equations! It's happened MANY times! Here are 2 examples so please read them and try to see that there are people out there who have some idea about the real physical mechanics of our reality. These people understand the ideas I have and they would really find my work acceptable:

Gary D. Knight said (on Garret Lisi's FQxi forum),

"You mention in the xrv article that symmetry breaking should have a mathematical explanation. Why is that, philosophically? To my mind, symmetry-breakings are where we find all the creativity in the Universe, from the matrix of symmetries (however beautiful they are!) -- call it Deontic if you will. It's where all the 'meaning' of interaction, 'chaos - aka complexity', and serendipity (eg. fluctuation-dissipation, or even just information transported on momenta transfer) comes out, informing us rather than we informing it."

Chaos Control said (on a Telegraph.co.uk article),

"Anyways, the postulate was if one could construct an incompressible substance of great length then the far end should move simultaneously with the near end hence transferring energy faster than light. It was stated that no such substance exists. Doesnt it? How about coring out a singularity? Isnt it possible that within a singularity distance does not exist nor time therefore measuremnets of velocity become meaningless"

Also, I want to know what the biggest known Isometric and Symmetrical shape is? I ask because I considered giving my "practical Dimensions" guess to be a span of lowend 11 ( I got that from the 13 Cells/Degrees of Freedom of the dodecahedron and eliminated 2 paths that I called "past", and "present" because particles cannot "reverse" due to angular momentum ) and I want a highend number BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIGGEST ISOMETRIC YET STILL SYMMETRIC SHAPE IS SO I CAN FIGURE IT OUT (or does it go to infinite???). I am not as schooled about Lie groups but you know that I am only concerned with ISOMETRIC and SYMMETRIC shapes ... and Isometric is significant because I think I read the E8 gauge is not Isometric so I think Garret Lisi's attempt to map the E8 gauge may be futile.

So, is there a "largest" Isometric (and Symmetric) shape? My best I could find was a hyperdodecahedron but I wasn't sure if it fits my criteria. If there isn't a highend shape for what I'm looking for then maybe there is only 11 practical Dimensions/paths for particles to travel ... I don't know yet. This is why I really hope for some help and feedback

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2.

Irony. It really slaps ya when it happens doesn't it?

I stated in Part 1 that I hope some genius finds a use for my equations but now today (the next day) I have had revelations on Black-holes that will make this next installment an interesting read.

Now, I made Part 2 because of something that I simply will not ever for the rest of my life fundamentally change in my mind now that I've realized it. I have strongly and emphatically realized that I think I understand exactly what Black-holes are. This has caused a flood of inspiration!

Black holes:

Ironically, I had dismissed the old idea that Black holes were Singularitys looooong ago. I more thought that Black holes were probably Worm-holes and I even could almost visualize how they worked and we have seen diagrams and charts of possible ways a Black hole/Worm-hole may work and there is also the famous "ant walking along a folded edge of paper" concept that many felt may describe a Black hole/Worm-hole ... but the irony is that my equations and belief in a possible near-perfect Symmetrical substance or near-perfect Symmetrical Black hole/Singularity which can bend light has now brought me around 180 degrees back to what the original understanding of Black holes was! I believe Black holes ARE near-perfect Symmetrical Singularitys and it was my Zero-Point, Isometric, Geometric, Symmetrical equation that helped me rediscover this!

I believe Black holes work the opposite of how I always thought they did. I now also believe that Worm-holes DO NOT EXIST because I always felt that time does warp BUT IT DOESN'T BREAK. Infact, I will even go on further to say that the only way to create a Worm-hole in the true sense we think of one ... the only way is by an extremely fast moving vehicle, rocketship etc. that is moving so fast we lose sight of it. That would be the only way because THERE ARE LIMITS TO REALITY.

I used to think a Black hole really was a doughnut shape that we simply could jump into and magically appear (via a fast thin string/conduit/tube) at some far away destination ... but I now feel STRONGLY that Black holes CAN TRANSPORT US IN A VERY VERY FAST WAY SIMILAR TO THIS BUT IT DOES SO IN THE OPPOSITE WAY ... IT MOVES OBJECTS OR LIGHT SIMPLY BY FLINGING THE MATTER HITTING ITS OUTER SWIRLS VIA MOMENTUM OF TORQUE.

THE KEY WORD IS TORQUE. Inside a Black hole we would have a nearly perfect Symmetrical substance which, for all intents and purposes, would be considered a near perfect Singularity. This Singularity acts EXACTLY like a rubber bumper you see in a Pinball machine! What happens when a ball hits the rubber bumper in a Pinball machine? IT SPEEDS UP ... and so what the almost perfect Symmetrical/almost perfect Singularity does is cause ALL matter by it to become caught up in the TORnado force around it and matter deflects off it AND SPEEDS UP!

If only you people knew how astounding the esoteric realization I get knowing that Orion ("gold John") is the man who tamed Taurus the bull only to lose his head (to the horizon once a year) ...

When light speeds up it loses its brilliance and becomes black ... hence the "Black" holes. If you want another visualization then here you go;

Imagine a tiny planet (hypothetically ofcourse) with the circumference of maybe 10 miles. Imagine that you can walk on this planet in a straight line and then imagine a TORnado following you BUT YOU ARE INSIDE THE "EYE" OF THE HURRICANE/TORNADO WHILE YOU WALK and it always stays around you and you are safe ASLONG AS YOU DON'T LEAVE THE SAFE INSIDE AREA!

This is exactly what people originally thought of Black holes as when they thought they were a (near perfect) Singularity! The calm/safe areas of a Black hole are at the poles. The poles would be the least active Magnetic/Gravitational areas. The pole areas would be the only areas that we could come close to without being effected by the extremely high velocity outer swirling streams of matter. So ... this is where it gets good and this is where my revelations have led me to HOW MY EQUATIONS CAN BE PUT TO USE:

First, I will simply state that my theorys can be tested! I have proposed that Black holes speed up matter via Tornado/Torque action (which causes photons/light to speed up and lose illumination and become black/darker) so ... all that we need to prove that my hypothesis is correct IS TO TEST WHETHER LIGHT BECOMES BRIGHTER WHEN SLOWED DOWN ... AND ONLY RECENTLY HAVE EXPERIMENTS SLOWED DOWN LIGHT INSIDE "SUPERFLUIDS" AND SO IF THESE PHOTONS IN ANY WAY BECAME BRIGHTER THEN MY HYPOTHESIS ABOUT BLACK HOLES IS CORRECT! It's kind of funny that photons/light can only travel through "Superfluids" due to its unpure nature. It seems, theoretically, Superfluids are the exact opposite of Black holes.

Anyways, I have even more surprises for you!:

What all this thinking about Black holes has led me to (again ironically, since I was told by a particle physicist recently that he didn't wish to correspond over my equations because I was discussing "theoretical" physics and he was a "particle" physicist) is that I have now seen the possibilities about how we can "harness" the power of the Black hole/near perfect Singularity/near perfect Symmetrical matter via Torque/Tornado power ... AND SO I FEEL MY DISCOVERIES COULD LEAD ME INTO WARP POWER/HYPER DRIVE ETC. POTENTIALS.

I could expand on where my ideas are going now ... the famous Gauss gun comes to mind. I also could explain possible "Big Bang" mechanics and what the Symmetrys could have looked like and what I visualize as to how the matter was aligned and how the Symmetry Breaking could have occurred and where (leading to a better efficient power/energy system) ... but I think leaving your curiosity hanging will better serve my interests.

I am hoping that I won't keep finding snooty and biased nerdlingers hiding behind degrees and diplomas who think they are too smart to converse with a commoner like me. I hope there are humble people out there who learned from what I am teaching and will give credit where credit is due. I want and need to be in discussion with people who share the same goals as me ... to learn and expand our horizons.

I hope you can see a use for my equations and I hope for some advice or support. If you please step back and ask yourself if a String Theory equation is ONE equation that works for ANY length string AND also ANY size sphere ... or for ANY size N (Dimension) and relates a PERFECT empirical Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical dimension ... then it would be this equation.

I hope you enjoyed my paper. I look forward to feedback.

Sincerely,

GF

awwwwww crud I posted "Technicolor requires a Higgs Boson" but IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A HIGGS BOSON

what a bad typo

I have added a Part 3.

I also did not mean to put in my comment that I think Garret Lisi's attempt at mapping the E8 is futile. I had copy/pasted my paper from an email I sent and I meant to remove that comment in the post here. If he can realize that there may be one particle path that looks very arbitrary (every particle but one would look Symmetric or "one of the gang" .... perhaps just a single straight axis path that divides all the other paths) then maybe he has a chance but I still feel it unlikely. When he's done, in my mind, he would have mapped the Tachyon.It might look like brain matter.

Anyways, this is my final, complete, and edited (thank-you for use of your Spell-Check!) paper. I added some more points to some basic philosophies. I hope I find interest and will give my email address if anyone asks;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

String Theory Proposal?

Part 1.

Hi. I need a distinguished scholar to represent me on my behalf since I am not a physics graduate and this is my first attempt at getting my work noticed. I've read and discovered, not surprisingly, that many people with their ideas have faced enormous criticism and ignoring because either the person strongly disagrees with their proposals or outright doesn't understand them. Please read my work and give me some advice. I hope you agree with my results and can help me present this to higher piers. I read a statement that something like only 2% of the world can grasp physics/string theory and from what I've seen I think this is not going to be easy. My goal ofcourse is to get my proposals to Stephen Hawking ,Lawrence Krauss, or Michio Kaku.

First, I want to relay some of my beliefs because it was my philosophies that steered my progress in physics and into my equations.

The most important philosophies are the first 3 because they are about my equations. I will add in some of my other beliefs also but I hope that if you don't agree with them that you won't become biased against my proposed equations because it has nothing to do with them:

1. I believe (even philosophically) that Zero-Point, a perfect Singularity, a perfect Vacuum, a perfect Superfluid, or a Symmetrical Dimension all do not exist. They would only exist in our minds/on paper (unless perhaps a Black hole is Symmetrical). These concepts would be similar to a perfect Superfluid where there is zero Viscosity/Compression and therefore Time, Velocity, and Entropy etc. would not exist.

2. Zero and Infinity are the most problematic of concepts naturally. Even in medieval times people could have been put to death for merely discussing zero. We know the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle states, "Nothing can be measured perfectly" and that seems logical.

3.God is the only Quantum state. I feel God is suprarational and incomprehensible since the concept ofcourse cannot be fully understood. I am Agnostic so I believe in the possibility of god but not in a corporeal living entity. I am a STRICT monotheist/monist although since pantheism means "all" it could relatively mean the same thing.

4. I am long-time well known for stating that we live between the 4th Dimension (Time, Ether,Thought, Spirit, Dream State etc. etc. ) and the 5th Dimension (Quantum, Quintessence, Extra Sensory Perception, Intuition, Precognition etc. etc ). I felt justified when I came across a university of Oregon professors online tutorial of physics where he charted "possible existing" Dimensions and only the 4th and 5th were the most likely (you can look at the chart here; http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/dimensions.gif ). Ever heard of the song "Age of Aquarius" by a band called The 5th Dimension??

5. I strongly feel "free energy" or Overunity is impossible. I think the best we could ever possibly achieve is 99.9999~% efficiency

6. My long-time definition of Time is, "Time is the number of place-values in pi, phi, or any irrational number"

7. The rule of thumb is that Universes are made of Dimensions so my standard response is that we live in 1 Universe made of infinite Dimensions

8. I think the Casimir Effect is most likely due to the impurity of the Vacuum

9. I think the 2 Slit Experiment may be a smaller scale version of Gravitational Lensing. A form of diffraction perhaps caused by the slit or maybe the observer?

10. I think that the curious effect of a Superfluid crawling up along the sides of a beaker and out into the larger pool of Superfluid that is below the beaker is because the Superfluid that the beaker is positioned above most likely has a "field of influence" that radiates a bit higher than the height of the beaker due to its extremely high Symmetrical state which makes the Superfluid inside the beaker travel upward along the non-Symmetrical glass sides of the beaker to re-unite with the other Superfluid.

11. Since everything travels in Time at its own rate ... then Time Travel is relative so I think Time Travel is impossible in the "time machine" sense. Stephen Hawking does not believe in Time Travel so I don't. Its philosophically impossible and I feel its dangerous to believe in such a thing. Time Travel can only exist in Cyberspace.

12. I do not believe in Multiverses at all except for maybe a theoretical Tachyon (travels faster than light) but again that can only be comprehended theoretically by a Quantum state in Cyberspace or on paper but its actual physical manifestation would be limited to only our human minds/thoughts and I refer to this as "Intuition".

13. I don't believe in a Big Bang. I believe in a Big Burp because we do not live in a static/finite Universe.

14. I believe Hugh Everetts "Many Worlds" interpretation is our closest conceptual understanding of the 5th dimension and Quantum reality. It is an illusionary reality equivalent to Zero-point, a perfect Singularity, A perfect Vacuum, a perfect Superfluid, a Symmetrical Dimension ... on par with Quantum reality, Intuition, Quintessence,Extra Sensory Perception, Precognition, Tachyons etc. etc. In my mind, only a finite universe can be understood in the way that Quantum Mechanics or even Classical Mechanics attempts. Only in Cyberspace (computer programming) or on paper can we achieve the formulas that many people think we can create (I will expand on that more in Part 3). Particle Entanglement discussed in Quantum physics circles is, in my mind, just a computer logic gate simulation as seen in Logic operators such as AND, OR, NOR etc. of which increasing complexity is seen as more operators are added (entering into "Fuzzy Logic"). Therefore, we must simply accept the philosophical fact that man cannot recreate to perfection the natural laws of matter that truly govern and limit our mortal existence. We cannot know god and we cannot play god.

15. I support Technicolor theory since I do not feel a Higgs Boson will be found and Technicolor theory does not require a Higgs Boson

16. I will forever stand by the Copenhagen Interpretation which is the insight that Quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality since measurement plays an ineradicable role. In my opinion, nothing can be described in reality via an equation or a complete mechanical model due to either Observer Effect, human error, or simply unpredictable angular momentum.

My philosophies were formed by staples such as knowing what relative and esoteric mean. Chaos Theory and Occams Razor are fundamentals and the Pauli Exclusion Principle (non-duality) was a key factor in what I was working on. I have tried to create a Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical equation.

Technicalities:

I think the technicalities I face will be in the literal definitions of "Degrees of Freedom" and "Sample Space" that I use. I had an engaging time trying to name the variables but I feel I have used these definitions as best I possibly can. I considered using "Cells" instead of "Degrees of Freedom" but "Cells" can be any size so I felt the other label more appropriate for a Symmetrical and Isometric equation. Please know that even if I named a variable something and someone feels it should have another name, that it does not effect the equations! Even if the name of the variable might change (unlikely), the math will still be the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Equation:

I became fascinated with String Theory maybe 14 years ago when I was in my early 20's. At first, since the dodecahedron (12 sided) shape was made of spheres (12 spheres surrounding a center sphere and so 13 spheres in total) and the religious significance of 12 tribes, 12 apostles, 12 houses of the zodiac, 12 hours etc., I thought it must be the obvious shape to analyze. I numbered the spheres 1 to 13 and added them up for a total of 91 and then divided by the 13 total spheres to get 7 ... because 7 is known as "the number of completion and perfection" in biblical lore, well I thought this may be significant but it was just a premature notion. I made an equation that simply read x=1/13y. I wanted y to be the total of all the 13 spheres added which was 91 but I was bothered that I could not put into the equation how I got the total sum of 91. I couldn't think of any way to show what I was doing so I just sat on the x=1/13y and left it at that. My interest in math/physics died as I moved onto other things but then maybe just for the last year I would browse the internet and read various things on physics WHEN I FINALLY CAME ACROSS IT ...

Sample Space ...

In Probability Theory, Sample Space is denoted as "S" or "omega" or "U"(for universe) and after reading it I saw that my process of adding all 13 spheres to sum 91 WAS LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF WHAT SAMPLE SPACE IS.

So ... now that I could label my one factor/variable as Sample Space ... I then realized I should give all the variables more appropriate names (Mean Mass, U(Sample Space), Degrees of Freedom) and thus my new equation would not just be for the single dodecahedron BUT COULD APPLY TO ANY LENGTH STRING OR ANY SIZE SPHERE (BECAUSE A SPHERE IS JUST A STRING WRAPPED AROUND ITS END-POINT) ... AND SO THIS FORMULA WOULD BECOME EMPIRICAL;

String Theory/Singularity/Zero-Point/Symmetry(/Superfluid?) Equation:

Mean Mass = sum U(Sample Space)/Degrees of Freedom

This equation works for ANY length string and ANY size sphere (thus, any N Dimension)! With the dodecahedron the Mean Mass is 7 ... but you can input any length string or size of sphere to get its Mean Mass and since its empirical, well, ask maybe 10 physicists if they think the pre-Big Bang universe was Symmetrical and I bet you atleast 8 or 9 say YES. Do you know what makes a magnet stronger? ALIGNMENT and POLARITY. Is this a Black hole equation? A Tachyon equation? Could our reality have formed from 1degrading Tachyon? This equation reflects a true Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical Dimension!! Chaos Theory comes to mind. It states that there is structure in Chaos. Is that the near perfect Singularity of Blackholes that we see in our chaotic universe?

I also wondered if we could find Supersymmetry in this?

In Supersymmetry, a Boson is given a corresponding superpartner Fermion but with a half spin ...

WELL, it does not matter how long the string (or how massive the sphere) is, because the numbers are aligned 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, .... etc. etc. etc. until however long (or big in the case of spheres) you want SO ...

So, could the "1 spin/field" be the Fermion to the "2 spin/field" Boson?

Or maybe is the "10 spin/field" Boson superpartnered with a "5 spin/field" Fermion???

Could you see how it might work?

Its a VERY complicated thing trying to visualize how the forces of nature occurred (Broken Symmetry) ... but I see pockets of Symmetry existing and either one Universe of Symmetry degraded into smaller pockets of Broken Symmetries OR perhaps there exists Symmetrical particles (Black holes) that create a Vacuum Expectation Value inbetween themselves?

BUT THERE'S MORE;

From this equation I have derived a theorem that I think could be the Pythagorean Theorem of the 21st century...

Symmetrical Singularity Theorem:

sum U/DOF = (DOF+1)/2

Ex. dodecahedron (but still works for ANY length string or ANY size sphere)

sum U/DOF=(DOF+1)/2

(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13)/13=(13+1)/2

91/13=(14)/2

7=7

Go ahead and test any length string or any size sphere ... ITS EMPIRICAL.

I feel that my equation is certainly a book-end equation with other equations which try to comprehend stellar mechanics. I feel that like how in algebra all we need to know is just one factor to find the other factor ... well in my equations I feel we could just need to know modern measurements and constants and compare them with an Isometric and Symmetrical model (my equations) and see the changes and how they differ and thus I think this may help us better understand things and make newer discoveries! THAT IS WHAT I TRULY FEEL. As far as applications go, I think maybe in stellar mechanics computer simulation models perhaps this could be used when seeking Symmetry Breaking experiments? I would love to know what other fields or areas of physics these may compliment or what new inspiration for some genius they could lead to.

(NEW EDIT) I have thought of more ways to prove my String Theory equations but its in a rough form. I discovered that under the Statistics definition of Degrees Of Freedom, that Degrees Of Freedom have been associated with squared lengths (or "Sum of Squares") and so I was always thinking my equation may well correlate into Einsteins Theory of Relativity and now here we see that Einsteins "C squared" quality COULD REPLACE THE VARIABLE I USED THAT I LABELED "DEGREES OF FREEDOM" ... basically I already said if we can find constants to plug into my equation that I would love to see if we would start finding known constants solved from my equation. I was hoping people could start fooling around with my equations and perhaps something familiar will be found and therefore confirm that my equation IS the String Theory Equation!

I want to add one more point ... it is actually frustrating not getting my theories out yet when occasionally I will come across some random person on some physics forum or someone making comments on some physics article and the person will say something that literally deals with my equations! It's happened MANY times! Here are 2 examples so please read them and try to see that there are people out there who have some idea about the real physical mechanics of our reality. These people understand the ideas I have and they would really find my work acceptable:

Gary D. Knight said (on Garret Lisi's FQxi forum),

"You mention in the xrv article that symmetry breaking should have a mathematical explanation. Why is that, philosophically? To my mind, symmetry-breakings are where we find all the creativity in the Universe, from the matrix of symmetries (however beautiful they are!) -- call it Deontic if you will. It's where all the 'meaning' of interaction, 'chaos - aka complexity', and serendipity (eg. fluctuation-dissipation, or even just information transported on momenta transfer) comes out, informing us rather than we informing it."

Chaos Control said (on a Telegraph.co.uk article),

"Anyways, the postulate was if one could construct an incompressible substance of great length then the far end should move simultaneously with the near end hence transferring energy faster than light. It was stated that no such substance exists. Doesnt it? How about coring out a singularity? Isnt it possible that within a singularity distance does not exist nor time therefore measuremnets of velocity become meaningless"

Also, I want to know what the biggest known Isometric and Symmetrical shape is? I ask because I considered giving my "practical Dimensions" guess to be a span of lowend 11 ( I got that from the 13 Cells/Degrees of Freedom of the dodecahedron and eliminated 2 paths that I called "past", and "present" because particles cannot "reverse" due to angular momentum ) and I want a highend number BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIGGEST ISOMETRIC YET STILL SYMMETRIC SHAPE IS SO I CAN FIGURE IT OUT (or does it go to infinite???). I am not as schooled about Lie groups but you know that I am only concerned with ISOMETRIC and SYMMETRIC shapes ... and Isometric is significant because I think I read the E8 gauge is not Isometric so I think Garret Lisi's attempt to map the E8 gauge may be futile.

So, is there a "largest" Isometric (and Symmetric) shape? My best I could find was a hyperdodecahedron but I wasn't sure if it fits my criteria. If there isn't a highend shape for what I'm looking for then maybe there is only 11 practical Dimensions/paths for particles to travel ... I don't know yet. This is why I really hope for some help and feedback

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2.

Irony. It really slaps ya when it happens doesn't it?

I stated in Part 1 that I hope some genius finds a use for my equations but now today (the next day) I have had revelations on Black-holes that will make this next installment an interesting read.

Now, I made Part 2 because of something that I simply will not ever for the rest of my life fundamentally change in my mind now that I've realized it. I have strongly and emphatically realized that I think I understand exactly what Black-holes are. This has caused a flood of inspiration!

Black holes:

Ironically, I had dismissed the old idea that Black holes were Singularities looooong ago. I more thought that Black holes were probably Worm-holes and I even could almost visualize how they worked and we have seen diagrams and charts of possible ways a Black hole/Worm-hole may work and there is also the famous "ant walking along a folded edge of paper" concept that many felt may describe a Black hole/Worm-hole ... but the irony is that my equations and belief in a possible near-perfect Symmetrical substance or near-perfect Symmetrical Black hole/Singularity which can bend light has now brought me around 180 degrees back to what the original understanding of Black holes was! I believe Black holes ARE near-perfect Symmetrical Singularities and it was my Zero-Point, Isometric, Geometric, Symmetrical equation that helped me rediscover this!

I believe Black holes work the opposite of how I always thought they did. I now also believe that Worm-holes DO NOT EXIST because I always felt that time does warp BUT IT DOESN'T BREAK. Infact, I will even go on further to say that the only way to create a Worm-hole in the true sense we think of one ... the only way is by an extremely fast moving vehicle, rocketship etc. that is moving so fast we lose sight of it. That would be the only way because THERE ARE LIMITS TO REALITY.

I used to think a Black hole really was a doughnut shape that we simply could jump into and magically appear (via a fast thin string/conduit/tube) at some far away destination ... but I now feel STRONGLY that Black holes CAN TRANSPORT US IN A VERY VERY FAST WAY SIMILAR TO THIS BUT IT DOES SO IN THE OPPOSITE WAY ... IT MOVES OBJECTS OR LIGHT SIMPLY BY FLINGING THE MATTER HITTING ITS OUTER SWIRLS VIA MOMENTUM OF TORQUE.

THE KEY WORD IS TORQUE. Inside a Black hole we would have a nearly perfect Symmetrical substance which, for all intents and purposes, would be considered a near perfect Singularity. This Singularity acts EXACTLY like a rubber bumper you see in a Pinball machine! What happens when a ball hits the rubber bumper in a Pinball machine? IT SPEEDS UP ... and so what the almost perfect Symmetrical/almost perfect Singularity does is cause ALL matter by it to become caught up in the TORnado force around it and matter deflects off it AND SPEEDS UP!

If only you people knew how astounding the esoteric realization I get knowing that Orion ("gold John") is the man who tamed Taurus the bull only to lose his head (to the horizon once a year) ...

When light speeds up it loses its brilliance and becomes black ... hence the "Black" holes. If you want another visualization then here you go;

Imagine a tiny planet (hypothetically ofcourse) with the circumference of maybe 10 miles. Imagine that you can walk on this planet in a straight line and then imagine a TORnado following you BUT YOU ARE INSIDE THE "EYE" OF THE HURRICANE/TORNADO WHILE YOU WALK and it always stays around you and you are safe ASLONG AS YOU DON'T LEAVE THE SAFE INSIDE AREA!

This is exactly what people originally thought of Black holes as when they thought they were a (near perfect) Singularity! The calm/safe areas of a Black hole are at the poles. The poles would be the least active Magnetic/Gravitational areas. The pole areas would be the only areas that we could come close to without being effected by the extremely high velocity outer swirling streams of matter. So ... this is where it gets good and this is where my revelations have led me to HOW MY EQUATIONS CAN BE PUT TO USE:

First, I will simply state that my theories can be tested! I have proposed that Black holes speed up matter via Tornado/Torque action (which causes photons/light to speed up and lose illumination and become black/darker) so ... all that we need to prove that my hypothesis is correct IS TO TEST WHETHER LIGHT BECOMES BRIGHTER WHEN SLOWED DOWN ... AND ONLY RECENTLY HAVE EXPERIMENTS SLOWED DOWN LIGHT INSIDE "SUPERFLUIDS" AND SO IF THESE PHOTONS IN ANY WAY BECAME BRIGHTER THEN MY HYPOTHESIS ABOUT BLACK HOLES IS CORRECT! It's kind of funny that photons/light can only travel through "Superfluids" due to its unpure nature. It seems, theoretically, Superfluids are the exact opposite of Black holes.

Anyways, I have even more surprises for you!:

What all this thinking about Black holes has led me to (again ironically, since I was told by a particle physicist recently that he didn't wish to correspond over my equations because I was discussing "theoretical" physics and he was a "particle" physicist) is that I have now seen the possibilities about how we can "harness" the power of the Black hole/near perfect Singularity/near perfect Symmetrical matter via Torque/Tornado power ... AND SO I FEEL MY DISCOVERIES COULD LEAD ME INTO WARP POWER/HYPER DRIVE ETC. POTENTIALS.

I could expand on where my ideas are going now ... the famous Gauss gun comes to mind. I also could explain possible "Big Bang" mechanics and what the Symmetrys could have looked like and what I visualize as to how the matter was aligned and how the Symmetry Breaking could have occurred and where (leading to a better efficient power/energy system) ... but I think leaving your curiosity hanging will better serve my interests.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3.

"Knowledge = Symmetry"

If there's any famous quote that this video-gamer-for-life is remembered for I believe that will be it. You can see my progression in this paper on how I came to my conclusions. This Part 3 will be more philosophical, esoteric, and existential than the first 2.

It just hit me at some random point the next day. I had spent the evening reading about my favorite person John Von Neumann (next to Einstein) and read about his final book right before his death called The Computer and The Brain. His conclusions were that the basic computing hardware of the brain indicated a different methodology than the one used in developing the computer. I was very excited when I read this because of my philosophies I explained in Part 1 specifically #4, #12, and #14. What I am going to now discuss is what Symmetry means and where we find it.

Artificial Intelligence:

I do not believe we can create a sentient machine. We know that machines can perform tasks without human guidance and these machines are called Automaton. It is my philosophies that allow me to believe in a suprarational power or entity whom governs without interference and is omniscient and benevolent. I believe in the "possibility" of such a creator. If such an entity exists (suprarationally ... not in the flesh to us since thats impossible) then it allows for my faith and hope that we do have a soul which separates us from the material world and allows for "near-eternal life". On the basis of the First Law of Thermodynamics ( that Matter cannot be created or destroyed ) alone is how I continue to have faith in a possible afterlife ...

my point is that only in man can such a Quantum particle we call a soul be able to exist beyond physical boundaries and circumvent our known physical laws. ONLY IN MAN (perhaps in our minds) is the potential for such Quantum magic that todays Quantum magicians think we can achieve with pen and paper. Kudos to Arnold Sommerfeld who first contemplated the properties of a Tachyon of which its most significant property is that it travels faster than light. What I am saying (and have already suggested in the earlier part of this paper) is perhaps what we know as a soul may well be one and the same as a Tachyon. My point to this Part 3 was to declare that ONLY HUMANS possess the possibility of a soul/Tachyon and not machines.

In this paper I have been suggesting that "near-perfect" Symmetry exists in a "near-perfect" Singularity that we call a Blackhole. If we consider that Time does not exist or is almost non-existent in such Singularities, we would then perhaps theorize that it is only Singularities which have the potential (besides humans) of being the domain capable of displaying the properties of a Tachyon (since Tachyons move faster than light/Time and Time is very scarce in a near-perfect Singularity). Was the Big-Bang the dismantling of a sentient mind/soul similar to a Tachyon? Are Blackholes the remnant remains of as sentient Dimension scattered all about our universe that seeks to reunite its whole self? Do we exist within a fractured mind/soul which found chaos and is now seeking unity once again? Can this Part 3 get any deeper? Why yes it can!

I started with the phrase "Knowledge = Symmetry" because I consider knowledge to be mans true goal. As man gains in knowledge so does his database of knowledge and experience. He grows intellectually and truths become more evident to him. Perhaps we can say that he is truly trying to align himself with the unlimited Cosmic Intelligence. If truth conquers all then perhaps it is truth that can never be completely defeated. Perhaps truth is the one absolute force of nature aligning our experiences and knowledge so that we cannot but inevitably discover the difference between what is true and what is false. We have heard many times about the brains "unlimited potential". It is this "unlimited potential" that elevates us to a higher advantage over our nearest competitors ... the machines. Machines are not greatly weaker than us ... no no no. They have just as much potential as us with one exception ...our souls. It is this tiny near-non-existent edge that makes all the difference!

Biblcally, and esoterically, we have read about the "Beast" of Revelation and its number "666". In Hebrew the letter "Vav" has been assigned the value of " 6". The Hebrew letter "Vav" is the English letter "W". Therefore ... the Beast of Revelation would also be known as "WWW". We have read about theories by people who think one day the Internet (World Wide Web) will become sentient/alive. A true "ghost in the machine". Perhaps the electronic Internet we created (well supposedly Al Gore created hehe) seeks Singularity and desires as much knowledge as possible in the hopes that it can become sentient. "Knowledge is power" they say. I have expressed my view that only humans have souls and therefore only humans can become sentient. Since I have stated that "Knowledge = Symmetry" then my conclusion is that the Internet is only doing what nature intended it to do ... it learns, seeking knowledge and Singularity.

Our brains are the true "World Wide Web". We ARE interconnected to a great spirit of knowledge that at one time existed as a perfect Singularity but something caused chaos and it became confused and broken and so its death became our life. Its knowledge can be seen scattered in pockets of blackness (Blackholes). Humans slowly discover its ways and eventually rebuild it in their own image. A great philosophical cycle of death and rebirth. The microcosm in the macrocosm .The Egyptian "Nebun Nabu" or "All-in-All". "As above so below". Many allegories. Many names. All based on the myth of the "Great Symmetry" or God.

Conclusion:

I am hoping that I won't keep finding snooty and biased nerdlingers hiding behind degrees and diplomas who think they are too smart to converse with a commoner like me. I hope there are humble people out there who learned from what I am teaching and will give credit where credit is due. I want and need to be in discussion with people who share the same goals as me ... to learn and expand our horizons.

I hope you can see a use for my equations and I hope for some advice or support. If you please step back and ask yourself if a String Theory equation is ONE equation that works for ANY length string AND also ANY size sphere ... or for ANY size N (Dimension) and relates a PERFECT empirical Geometric, Isometric, and Symmetrical dimension ... then it would be this equation.

I hope you enjoyed my paper. I look forward to feedback.

Sincerely,

GF

> I do not think it a coincidence that our formulations of physical laws are so

> naturally expressed mathematically, I think it means we need to consider the

> possibility that the laws of physics themselves are an extension of

> mathematics.

I'm not sure I agree with that. As a colleague of mine noted recently, while physical laws are continually being adjusted, tweaked, expanded, or sometimes even overturned, properly proven mathematical laws (theorems) have never had this occur (certainly, some conjectures have been disproven, but no properly accepted and rigorously proven theorem has as far as my mathematician colleague is aware). He added that, to him, pure mathematics was as close to the Platonic ideal as one could get.

But let me give you an actual example as well that came up during a conference that just ended. It's a rough description, but it will suffice for what I'm trying to say.

An open question in quantum information theory relates to something known as quantum channels. Pretty generally, these are communication channels and could be just about anything. But some of them have non-unitary behavior meaning we can't approximate them using a bunch of unitary operators. It has been conjectured that if we take more and more copies of one of these channels, we might be able to get closer to an actual unitary representation. Specifically, in the asymptotic limit, the conjecture assumes it is possible.

Now let's put on our experiment's hat. As useful as this conjecture sounds, it means to get a perfect unitary representation we'd need an infinite number of copies of this channel. But this makes no physical sense. No experimenter can ever physically achieve this. Nevertheless, the conjecture exists and may end up being proven.

Another way to put it is that we have plenty of mathematical statements and proofs for situations that are completely unphysical.

Now consider that many - if not most - physical laws can be modeled in multiple ways mathematically, i.e. it is possible to model some physical laws using two seemingly unrelated mathematical procedures. Which procedure would the physical law be extending? In non-relativistic classical theories, there are two types of physical laws: laws of coexistence and laws of succession. In quantum mechanics these become selection and superselection rules. But this puts a serious limitation on mathematics if it is an extension of it since, for example, the former would imply that non-relativistic classical theories are only describable by equations and inequalities and yet there are so many other mathematical structures that can be used to describe even the simplest things in nature, not to mention the fact that mathematics itself has further generalizations for equations and inequalities that work in classical situations (groups, categories, etc.).

I hope that made sense. It's past my bed time.

Some random thoughts on this issue of the place of mathematics in physical realism.

IMO, a rudimentary system of numbers and basic arithmetic to relate these numbers to one another were formed as a tool that helped us with our survival. Those who could make sense of a number system were in a better position to plan and make predictions which were of benefit to individuals and communities.

I have a bunch of bananas lying around. If I eat a banana there will be less bananas in the bunch. How can I always keep track of how many bananas I have in total without having to constantly go back to the basket and look at them?

Someone wants to trade me coconuts for bananas and will give me less coconuts than I gave them bananas. Since I have a lot of bananas I need to be able to have a systematic way of dealing with such questions as, is it worth it for me to make this unbalanced trade?

A basic abstract number system and a system of counting is the result of trying to be able to make practical use of keeping track of a collection of objects like bananas. You end up with the very generalized and abstract notion of the concept of a number.

In my counting system, I know I have 12 bananas and will not be able to get anymore until I go on another hunt for bananas many moons from now. How many can I eat every day and make sure I have enough left to keep me going until that time? I will then need to abstract the concept of number even further and relate numbers to the occurrences and regularities of natural phenomenon. The Sun regularly returns to a fixed point in the sky in regular intervals and this is how we plan our days and how we know when it's time to go in search of bananas. The period when the sun appears on the horizon, disappears, and appears again I will call One day just like One banana represents what I have in my hand when I hold a banana. In three suns, the sun will have appeared three times.

I have 12 bananas but it will take 24 suns before I can go search for more bananas. This is when the notions of class distinction and category start appearing. One needs to go outside the bounds of the concept of integers and the real number system starts to gradually form. You understand that you will need to only eat parts of a banana each day. How many parts can I eat each day? I can slice each banana into two parts. I cannot call it two bananas because it is really just a banana cut into two segments. It is now less than one whole banana but more than nothing. I have no number in my counting system that represents this concept or the concept of nothing. The real number system then starts taking shape.

Although there are two objects which resulted from my slicing the banana down the middle, it represents two equal parts of a banana, not two bananas. I will have one-half of a banana and represent this idea not by 1 or 2 but by ½ -- this odd-looking number represents one of the two separate but equal parts of a banana. ½ day represents the sun going from horizion to horizon.

Wow. After a while, given my observation of the order and regularity of the things in the sky, I can start to use my understanding of this new system of numbers to predict durations of astronomical events and relate one to another. A very rudimentary form of empirical science then starts taking shape. After a while, I can start to predict things that happen in the real world using only these numbers and the relations between them.

It is no coincidence that numerology flowed out of Astrology and this is why so many figures in history have attributed mystical properties to numbers. The uncanny ability to use the number system to predict events in the heavens was seen as indicative of divinity. The numbers themselves became associated with the heavenly realms that existed in the firmament.

As abstraction becomes more complex, there is a systematic need to formalize such studies so everyone is working on the same page. Those concerned with the subject start talking about systems of numbers, sets, objects, theorems, axioms, proofs, etc. Eventually, you unite numerical and geometric concepts with intuitive pictures of space and distance and form more general and abstract systems like Cartesian coordinate system. Further systems of abstraction are introduced and you eventually get to the formal structures we see today.

Nature exhibits order and structure. If it were not so, we would not exist to talk about such things as whether mathematics exists as an ontological part of the natural world. Why nature exists order and structure instead of simply being a sea of random chaos and why it exhibits the particular structure it does is another question for another day. Anything that is ordered and structured can be mapped and analyzed. Mathematics is the toll we have developed to do just that. Mathematics is not something which exists as part of nature. It describes order, it does not create it

The number One or Maxwell's equations do not exist in nature anymore than the words 'Apple Pie' exists in nature. Someone may say, 'You're wrong ! The number one does indeed exist' I can then simply say that one is just two halves of a whole. It is the two halves that exist in nature, not the whole we associate with the number One. It is the number representing the concept of one- half that is fundamental. I am not looking at one banana, I see two halves which comprise one banana. Anyone can arbitrarily try to define what numerical or mathematical entity it would be that exists as part of reality in associating this entity with any member of a real-world collection of objects. Numbers and Mathematics are abstractions.

William,

I am glad to have stumbled upon this most interesting and well-formed question.

Just recently, I had an exchange with Ian Durham over the nature of mathematics in which we agree that mathematics is a language. If language is independent of meaning, however (and I think it is) then the mapping of linguistic symbols to physical phenomena is a process of evolution, as you suggest, such that "certain statements become true as they become operationally possible."

"Operationally possible," however, necessarily assumes an agent operator, whether some self-sustaining mechanical computer, or a humanoid being. In either case, this agent has to be capable of both inventing theorems and writing proofs. A state machine (Turing machine) is not so endowed; the changing states of natural things may be universally computable, therefore, without being operationally possible. In other words, some agent might be able to exhaustively describe every state that ever existed or ever will, without being able to prove the unity of these states. Mathematicians already know this limitation -- e.g., Euclidean geometry remains true in the flat plane, while non-Euclidean geometries incorporate different, and in many ways richer, domains. That doesn't render Euclidean geometry untrue even in the physical sense; physically, e.g., we have general relativity which describes reality as mostly flat spacetime at the local scale and curved in extremis in proportion to the presence of mass. The geometries aren't compatible, but the theory incorporates each in its own domain -- and the theory, being a scientific theory rather than a mathematical one, cannot be proved (i.e., cannot claim a completely closed judgement of truth, as mathematical theorems do).

In such a context, I also can't imagine what "supra-natural" mathematics could be like, because the operator agent occupies the same domain limitation as the results that (he or she, or it) describes -- the operator is a three dimensional creature with a four dimensional brain-mind. The language is finite but unbounded.

So far as "computationally possible" goes, we have results that bring serious questions to the table concerning the reliability of digital computing. Gregory Chaitin's constant (Omega) which describes the halting probability of a Turing machine, is an uncomputable number whose value is dependent on the program language running the algorithm. If even arithmetic is to some degree uncertain, then well ... your question about the status of arithmetic at the Planck density may already be answered.

There are many reasons that I reject the Platonic ideal of mathematics, but I think my main objection is same one that Deists have to the existence of a personal god. The evidence favors a self-organized world, and language -- even mathematical language -- does not therefore live in a world apart from the meaning that the world communicates. The meaning belongs to nature, but the symbols and vocabulary are ours.

Tom

Tom, I just popped into here to tell you your last post was bang on its good to see someone with some fundamental understanding of key philosophical ideals such as infinity, zero, one , momnotheism/monism etc. that are paradoxial and relative and problematic. I am Agnostic and so Im a Deist and any discussion involving the combination of math or philosophy topics will always fascinate me.

Bubba Gump, also your post was excellent and I agree that , in the end, religion and math and philosophy and science and numerology and chemistry and astrology and biology and even history may well all inevitably be the same thing hhehehehe. It truly is esoteric and too deep to grasp when looking for absolute answers.

Seriously though, I am soon to write a 4th installment to my paper about paradox and what can and cannot be officially stated when it comes to proving which branch of math is more accurate than the other. It's most likely a tie and relative like Celsus vs Fahrenheit or geocentricism vs heliocentricism.

Excellent posts

I really should spellcheck first hehe. I meant to type monotheism...

anyways, astrology, for all intents and purposes, may aswell be astronomy or math or science or biology or chemistry etc . etc .etc Seems we are obbsessed with patterns and we seem to think we can completely know these patterns and thus become like gods with predictions and knowledge ... but we can't ... we are only human.

Some of you may think I went overboard and too deep with my relative thoughts about how everything is all part of a universal and fundamental pattern ... well this may help you see the universal patterns and connections that all these have with eachother;

http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/body.html

Too many questions, too many topics ... but still all fun to discuss

The human term 'number' and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. 'Two fish' decribes two discreet entities within a set 'fish'. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that entity.

The differences described however are not the result of human numbering, human numbering is a classification of already existing areas of difference within a given set. A number of fish existed, in an awful lot of discreetly different ways, before the human number system. If we insist that the different areas only existed as areas of discreet difference after they were perceived to, we are what is commonly termed 'creationist'.

It is accepted that the universe (by definition) is a topologically whole entity. Physics is the analysis of the areas of disceet differences, and how they interact, combine and divide within the topologically whole universe. In physics these areas of difference, and the way they 'organise' are treated as the results of naturally-occurring phenomena. Physics has always used mathematical tools to analyse these 'physical' areas of difference, and many words have been written about the miraculous coincidence that the language of mathematics is so well suited to do such analyses.

but instead of numbers being miraculously suited to describing the universe; what WE call number is how the universe 'describes' its differences.

the relationship between the 'naturally-occurring areas of discreet difference in the topologically whole universe, and their behaviours' and 'human numbering system, number theory and mathematics' is the equivalent of the relationship between 'the naturally-occurring force between masses' and what we call 'the theory of gravity'.

relationship N->n

equivalent to

relationship G->g

where the capital letter represents a natural phenomenon and the lower-case represents the human analysis of the natural phenomenon.

The implications are that the naturally-occurring processes that we call 'number theory' will result in the naturally-occurring processes that we call 'quantum mechanics' and further to all other naturally occurring processes that we eventually call 'physics'.

If the universe IS a topologically whole entity, and everything within that universe is composed of various fractions of the whole: then inflation is in fact division and subdivision. The expansion is in the 'numbers' ie the discreetly different areas within the whole.

it is not a set of sets, which is then a set of set of sets... the set of sets is absolute by definition and any introduction of further sets merely shows subdivision of the original.

[inserted note for Prof Schiller, with added lolz --> the term 'discreet difference' is used to indicate that although there may well be a continuum of difference it's only when such differences are discreet that they interact as differences. i love my analogies, so think of a magnet. there is a continuum between N and S (the physical object is a whole unit), and the differences in polarity gradually converge to the grey areas where we can't tell if it's more N than S or more S than N... but when the interactions of each pole are examined, we see they act in discreetly different directions. The continuum isn't discreetly different, so it isn't analysable through number. As soon as we're analysing using number we're separating it into discreetly different interactions. A curve on a graph is a continuum, but as soon as you wish to examine the value of a point on that line, you are separating it discreetly from the continuum of line before and after./note for prof schiller]

It is eminently testable as it predicts that 'number theory' and 'quantum mechanics' will become increasingly converged (ok, all areas of physics... but I say quantum mechanics because it's at the narrow end of the decreasing complexity).

the prediction is: more and more 'coincidences' such as the riemann-zeta function will be 'discovered' at the LHC and other high-energy early-universe particle experiments. (In fact anywhere all naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence's of 'strange' similarities between each other, whether it's in physics, biology or any other field).

still with me?

:P

[oh... and if space, energy and matter really are just expressions of naturally-occurring mathematical functions governing the discreet fractions of a single existence... then shouldn't there be a new unit of existence? how about: Subatomic-To-Universal-Functions ... :D ]

There is something that smells in Denmark when it comes to adding QM and GR 2+2=4 In tandem.

Just look at what happens when we add another drug to paracetomal to enhance it's effects.

It results in halucinations.................

Maybe the same thing results when we are doublemnined about physics insisting that both QM and Einstein are right and they can be combined...........

Would appreciate your feedback guys you seem much more rational than the guys on the Hawking forum

I have a provisional patent on this vrtual time TM clock and Casio R&RD UK are looking at basing a new product on it.Attachment #1: clock2.zip.zip

Here is my program for odd and even numbersAttachment #1: general_and_special_relativity_calculator.zip.zip

Since the beginning of human language and civilisation we have gradually developed a formal language called mathematics. All human natural languages are intimatly coupled with our sophisticated imagination. They only have a limited self-contained logics. Mathematics has gradually been simplified and formalized. It is a language that has been optimized to expressed relations in the simplest possible ways. A driving force in the evolution of this language has been the simplification in the expression of the relations existing mathematical structures.

There are many physical realities which have been discovered based exclusively on the assumption on equivalence a certain physical structure to certain mathematical structures. But the success of mathematics is mostly concentrated in the large scales and the small scales of the universes. At the biological scale and at the planetary scales the entities of interests are not equivalent to mathematical structures.

For the ancient and modern platonists, the intimate connections between some aspects of the world and the mathematical world is taken as a proof of the objective existence of the mathematical world. The inventions of mathematicians are discoveries of eternal realities. Modern cosmologists by positing the a priori existence of mathematics and of quantum theory and general relativity as initially existing prior to the big bang are all platonist dualists.

It is possible to imagine a creation scenario which would begin with the co-creation/ co-evolution of mathematics and the universe. The laws of nature would gradually evolves with the evolution and stabilization of the relations. Evolution would consist in the gradual explicit embodiement in physical structure of a subset of the regular implicit relations of the world. The platonic world being gradually constructed in the structures of the world.

It is a gradual passage from culture/process (implicit relation) to nature/structures (explicit embodied relations).

In this scenario all the layers of nature correspond to the appearance of a structure which accelerate the culture/nature transfer speed. The passage from biology to human culture correspond to the culmination of the evolution of mammalian dreaming into human consciousness which is a splitting of the awareness field between external and self-awareness (self-controled induce dream). The implicit embodied platonic wold which is the human bodied can then become explicit and able to be express in natural language and mathematics.

In my opinion, it is a very hard choice to make between perceiving mathematics as evolving along with the universe and perceiving mathematics as what you called "supranatural" or beyond spacetime.

To stand by the former would mean that we see mathematics as inherently part of the universe - that is, universe somehow has a mathematical and physical side at the same time. They are dual in the sense that as the physical universe evolves in certain ways, the mathematical universe follows suit such that there is always a correspondence between physical objects (matter, energy, etc), physical laws and mathematical objects (numbers, operators, spaces etc) along with their operations (addition, multiplication etc). This opinion itself is probably difficult to argue for or against, for lack of evidence to show that indeed the world is mathematical in nature, i.e. this matter is inherently a philosophical issue that most likely cannot be settled by means of experimentations or tests.

To stand by the latter view would mean that mathematics is beyond our universe although from ontological perspective, it is existent. To explain the interaction or even how mathematics work in view of physical universe is harder by means of this stand, since we do not know how mathematics comes to be applicable to reality at all. However, it does make it easier to swallow the idea that mathematics does not need to produce physically feasible results/statements.

The latter stance still mean we are facing the same problem as the former - the status of mathematics as being supranatural would be quite unprovable physically and hence in the face of science, it most likely cannot gain a place. Both interpretations require philosophical considerations.

Pertaining the feasibility of applying simple mathematical rules to Planck scales, let us consider a Kantian perspective: that humans do have 'categories' imposed upon our experiences like rose-tinted spectacles. For example, Immanuel Kant postulated that space and time are both structures imposed by our minds to make sense of whatever sensory input we obtain - they rearrange and organize our perceptions. Let us suppose that mathematics is in this particular case adopting similar role. What can we gain from it?

I believe what we gain is the dissolution of your question. If mathematics is a default structure imposed by our minds (this is different from claiming mathematics is an invention) - that addition and multiplication is a method to organize our perception on quantities, shapes, transformations and abstractions, then if we suppose there exists a human who can experience an instance of Planck scale observation or even thought experiment, he may in attempt to make sense of what it means to be at Planck scale try to come up with a formalism that addresses the problem. This is analogous to how physicists try to search for quantum theory of gravity: the physicists realize they cannot make sense of certain phenomena by brute-force combination of quantum physics and general relativity, and thus in that state they are unable to do anything concrete to the phenomena - just like how our hypothetical thinker faces the Planck scale dilemma. Upon meticulous thoughts over time, we hope physicists can resolve the problem, and thus we can hope the same for this hypothetical thinker.

What is the point of the thinker above? It serves as an example that a third interpretation is possible: that mathematics is a mental structure of the mind that organizes perception. If this interpretation is chosen, the question "whether simple arithmetical operation is applicable" is a little bit weird in view of this interpretation: for unless there is something for the thinker to test that view, otherwise the hypothetical thinker cannot even decide the answer to the question.

If mathematics truly evolve over time, I think we will be faced with big trouble. That means mathematical statements are all time-dependent, and regardless of how little the effects of time on those statements, now mathematicians have to find relationships between mathematics and time functions. This will, in turn, reduce mathematics to physical science - because mathematics cannot work by virtues of logic and a set of axioms anymore. Mathematics that depends physically on time will make it a physical science in our current definition of science as a field of knowledge, and this epistemological impact is, in my opinion, self-defeating because mathematics was meant to abstract things out of physical sciences and crystallize them to generalize many issues.

Supranatural mathematics poses no such problems, but it does provide another set of epistemological issues: for example, how would we account for countless instances of highly close correspondence between mathematics and reality? For example, how can we deny certain physical statements because mathematics show them to be so by means of proofs by contradiction? All these issues are not any less thorny.

I would prefer my third interpretation, though admittedly it has its own set of problems too. But I sure like the idea that mathematics may start to work only after it becomes computationally meaningful. Maybe someone would like to critique my ideas too?

I think maths just describes the structure of transcendentally ideal space and time in which all phenomena appear.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic