WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Dear Mr.Fisher,

Thanks for your thought provoking arguments.

But can one without hesitation conclude

"that mathematics has nothing to do with the

manner in which the the real Universe is

occuring"?Why are you bodered about the

"general relativity" of mathematics?Why not

see it as an asset; the way Newton regarded

geometry as a branch of mechanics.Or is their

any social benefit that constitute the

RATIONALE FOR A STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY

between mathematics and physics?

Maybe as a word of advice let me reiterate

Wagner's assertion that "the enormous

usefulness of mathemaics in the natural

Sciences is something bordering on the

mysterious and that there is no rational

explanation for it".

Keep on flourishing.

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

Dear Joe:

I am responding to your request for a reply to your paper.

First of all, I do not understand why all surfaces must be travelling at a constant speed and all subsurfaces at a unique lower speed. Can you further explain your reasoning here? Assuming that what you say is true, the generalization or abstraction that only surfaces and subsurfaces are real becomes what defines ultimate reality.

Secondly, realism also makes the reality/appearance distinction an abstraction that raises the abstract question, why is reality, including the sciences that misinterpret it, so deceptive? Even sense-perception requires some pattern recognition or levels of abstraction. Blind people whose sight has been physically restored still cannot see very well because they do not know how to see or to abstractly process visual simulation. Without contrast and abstraction (concepts), we cannot perceive, let alone think about, the world. Percepts without concepts are blind. Monistic realism undermines its own abstract foundation since foundations are themselves abstract.

Sincerely, David Frederick Haight

Dear Joe,

If you take the position that the Universe, prior to our observing it, has no distinctions (is a unity), then the mathematics that we find in relation to it is part of our description of the Universe. But we are not separate from the Universe and so our mathematics is part of the process of the Universe.

The Universe has the property that she acts (through us at least) to conceptualize, abstract and describe herself. In that way mathematics and Universe are inseparable. There is no reason to assume that the Universe is made entirely of mathematics!

Best,

Lou Kauffman

Dear Joe:

I am responding to your request that I review your essay. Words, words, words, mean different things to different people, whether meant to be abstract or real. The key to look "underneath the surface" implies it is viewable, and obviously it is not.

BTW, there is some arithmetic error in my essay, it is a work in progress. But the simple approach of defining two things that exist, i.e. mass as an inscribed stable sphere within the energy of an unstable regular tetrahedron that surrounds it ...which interacts to shield mass from the surroundings. In short, surface-to-volumes of spheres and tetrahedrons differ and are at war for their existence as energy gains and losses fight with mass growths and decays, e.g., the ratio of Pressure =E/V and surface tension = E/A to produce A/V. that implies "action energy gains/losses" at small sizes or the inverse, V/A implying "action mass growth/decay".. One must always balance the other to exist or eliminates the other. Like electrons to protons... or males to females, or government to people..

Good luck to you. You are passionate about your ideas, not the usual essay.

Dear Joe

I read your essay. I seems to me, that you have a similar approach as I had 30 years ago: ''mathematics is not the most essential for physics, but the most essential is our feeling and insight of physical world.'' I do not think so anymore, math is essential for me. But not 100%. I think that the only nonmathematical element of physics is panpsichism. Mostly you can see my view in my essay. From reading essays here, for instance Maluga, Smolin, Woit etc, I make still some corrections.

One your claim is non uniqueness of physics. But, if mathematics predicted almosti all movements with a few laws, that mathematical part is not unique.

Another your claim is about surfaces ... You should also respect that two photons can interact with each other, according to QED, but very rarely. Some your claims about empty spaces seem similar as Mach principle. (Despite of General relativity it seems to me, that this still ever exists, for instance if we remove all matter from the universe, universe will not exist.)

Thus in principle I do not completely exclude all your ideas, because, I feel at you my way of thinking many years ago. But you should merge them with math.

I also do not like ideas of many physicists, that all except of math is useless in physics.

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

Hello Joe,

Referring to your essay, it is not bad to be skeptical about assertions of others that one has no rational basis for confirming to be true or false. The world of relativity appears to deny the absolute. In using the adjective "abstract" we need to understand from what the abstraction has been separated from - matter or practice or particular examples. Similarly, in using the noun "abstract" we need to know the entity of which an abstract is the essence, a summary, an idea or a term.

We need to define what we mean by "real" before we use the term (e.g. being objective, natural, sincere, etc.) A "real" belief is not synonymous with the truth, it is merely a state of temporary acceptance pending the receipt of a more persuasive alternative. Your notion of "reality" appears to be applied solely to objective matter. Thus it cannot be applied (for example) to an idea. You use the term "real" (or reality) 158 times in your essay!

Insofar as all ideas (represented by words) exist, it is the form of such existence that is critical to qualifying as being "real". Believe it or not, the only form that God can be confirmed to exist is that of an idea.

It is inconclusive and unproductive to assert that certain ideas are "wrong" in the absence of a convincing argument to that effect - and a viable alternative.

Joe,

the boundary of a 3D object is a surface. In this point I agree with you. Of course this is the reason why we see only surfaces at the first. But at the other there is a lot of experimental evidence for three (space) dimensions. I would expect that it is part of reality too.

I'm quite sure that at the fundamental level (around Planck length) the world is 2D. But I remember on former discussions...

Torsten

Dear Lou,

Even an abstract universe could not exist prior to an abstract duo abstractly observing it.

No matter in which direction a real eye, or a working fabricated camera or radar sensor points, it will only encounter surface.

Unfortunately, all of the philosophers and physicists who have ever lived have never paid any attention to reality. If every single real thing you look at now has a real complete surface, due to the universality of the abstract law that abstractly governs the real Universe, complete surface, and only complete surface must exist whether it is observed or not.

Joe Fisher

Interesting essay Joe,

I think your writing has gotten more polished, as this one is more easily readable than past attempts. I agree entirely with a portion of your thesis. A value of zero is just as elusive and unphysical as a value of infinity. Though these numbers exist in the abstract, and though they tell us something useful when they pop out of the Math, they are not part of our physical reality - strictly speaking. Buckminster Fuller talked about equilibrium as one of those abstract things that Physics and Chemistry folks bandy about, but isn't exactly real - because real physical systems only ever approach an equilibrium state, and never quite get there. In general; physical systems live just to one side of ideal states, in a unique configuration that exists exactly once. I also agree that there are no isolated systems or objects, as isolated states live in the world of appearances, and all isolated segments are actually part of a singular and unique whole - the universe. Beyond this; I have to stretch to find areas of agreement.

I find there is broad agreement of some of your ideas with thoughts shared in Jill Bolte Taylor's book "My Stroke of Insight." She spoke of finding that there was a large area of her brain, that all along had been taking in the universe as it is, and understanding it as it really is, without having to separate things into separate bins labeled with abstract categories. Unfortunately; the event which brought her that awareness was a stroke that rendered a portion of her brain non-functional - which forcefully pushed her into the acute awareness of her right brain, most people tune out. She describes seeing the universe as one connected whole, and reality as a continuously evolving unified entity - rather than a series of discrete events and objects sequentially interacting in time. From this perspective; she was able to note that a lot of the categorizing people do is artificial, and emanates from a few isolated portions of the brain - from which we cherry pick our views of the world. Similarly; you are pointing out a portion of our awareness of what is real, that modern scholars have typically learned to tune out or marginalize.

Accordingly; I have to give you some credit for boosting our awareness of some aspects of reality we might otherwise ignore. However; there are some points of issue Joe, possibly because your unique perspective only applies completely once - for you! As to the speed of light and surfaces thing; you seem to indicate that the 'real' light is the kind that propagates along the surface of objects, and gives them simultaneous existence. In the Physics jargon; light moving along a surface is said to consist of plasmons instead of photons - so you would seem to be saying that plasmons are real while photons are not. Or perhaps you are saying that a propagation in 3-d (as photons) is only real once the light reaches a surface. But again; you seem to be saying photons are not real. This makes it tough to explain the photoelectric effect, where light liberates electricity. So my thought is that while you offer some needed perspective, Joe; the abstractions you would have people throw away offer some needed insights also. Perhaps even in a world which is unique and only happens once, there is some room for many interpretations to be valid.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Ok Joe: You have asked that I read and comment on your essay, here goesy review.

You keep begging the existence and dimension from the eye to surfaces and subsurfaces, with the objection, as I understand it, that in your reduction one can go to one dimension and abstraction. Yea this is great for philosophers, but in the real world we need to live, eat, sleep & predict to make the best of life. When we can apply a math formula and get out a car that runs, or a house that is protecting from the absence of heat, we are happy and think we have mastered the Universe. If you want to take us to the nexus of existence and the issue of reality as posed by this essay, kindly read the Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky Experiment regarding whether the cat is alive or dead following a correlated event. You will have to decide if life has something different about it and how the subspace changes. It forces you to be practical rather than philosophical. At the most minute level we don't know; at the faster than light we don't know either; at below zero we are also ignorant. However, for what we know that we can predict, Einstein and Newton were brilliant and giants intellectually. You also seem to possibly be of the philosophical persuasion that when the lights go out, the Universe disappears. If so, I cannot speak to your truth, which does come from your senses and not mine. You DO have a point, but it won't go anywhere nor work for you to advance in life, Or a deep understanding of the Universe, I think.

Mary