WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Fisher,

I think most people, though not all, would agree with you that existence is concrete, not abstract. Most people would also agree with you that physical existence and mathematical structures are two different things. The deep question is what relationship between the two allows study of the latter to be useful in understanding the former. Would you perhaps contend that mathematics is of no use at all in physics?

Best wishes,

Laurence Hitterdale

Dear Joe,

You are right that my example of the piece of wood was based on what I believe would be the result if you actually took a real piece of wood and covered it as I described in my comment to you based on my past experience with real things and was not based on an actual experiment done at that time on real pieces of wood. I, therefore, did a real experiment with real things to see if your belief that all real surfaces travel at the same speed can be true. The real me sat on a real chair in front of and facing a real table, which was in front of a real couch. I placed a real piece of wood on the real table and pushed it away from me so that I could really just touch it when my arm was really fully extended. I then extended my arm about ½ of the way between really fully retracted and really fully extended and wrapped my real index finger around a real marble and used my real thumb to really project it away from my real hand and it came to rest on the real couch. You are right that the marble did really look a little smaller than it did when it was in my real hand, but its position relative to the real me and my real hand also appeared to have changed. To check that out I then extended my real arm all the way again and found that I could still really just touch the piece of wood on the table, so my arm's reach really remained the same. With it fully extended I really reached for the marble, but found that I really could no longer reach it. If it was actually in the same position relative to the real me and my real hand, but had only become smaller, I would still have been able to reach out and grab the real marble, but I could not because its real position relative to the real me had changed. This could also be determined because it was now really sitting on the real couch which was in a position really located farther from the real me than the real table was. I then got up from the real chair and walked over to the real couch and picked up the marble from it to prove that it actually really was on the couch and not still in the air where it had left my real hand.

The point of the real experiment is to prove that the real marble's real surface changed in position relative to the real surface of my real hand and the other real things mentioned above. Motion is just a real continual change in position in some real direction. Speed is just how fast that change of position occurs. If the surfaces of 2 real things are traveling at the same speed and in the same direction then their real positions relative to each other (the distance between them) will remain the same. If the distance between them changes, it can only be because they are not both moving at the same speed or they are not both moving in the same direction. If the change in relative position was caused by only changing the direction of the motion of the real surface of the real marble, this could be detected by projecting the real marble in different directions. When it was projected in the same direction as the motions of the real me, the real chair, the real table, the real piece of wood, and the real couch, etc. there would be no change in direction and the real marble's position relative to the other things would not change. To check this out I projected the real marble in many real different directions and its real position changed from the real me by about the same real amount in each direction. Since the real position of the real surface of the real marble did change relative to the real surfaces of the real me, chair, table, piece of wood, and couch, the real surface of the real marble could not have really been moving at the same real speed of all the other real surfaces when it was really changing position relative to those real surfaces. Since we can observe these relative changes between the real positions of many real surfaces all around us in real life, all surfaces do not move at the same real speed. Also, when the real marble was moving from my real hand to the real couch, its real sub-surface (inside) had to be moving at the same speed as its real surface (outside) toward the real couch and not slower or its real sub-surface would have broken out of the back of the real surface of the marble and would have been left behind.

Of course, you could have a different definition of the word real than its standard meanings. If so, please give me your definition, so we can be talking about the same things. It might help to also get your definition of the words abstract, surface, and sub-surface if they are defined by you differently in any way than the way I have been using them above.

I noticed that you did not answer my comment that it appears that according to how your theory is described to work, either vacuum would have to exist around surfaces or all surfaces would be in contact with something else and thereby be changed to sub-surfaces by the contact. This would effectively eliminate all surfaces from existence.

In your examples, you carefully chose observations of things that are too far away from the observer to allow them to be observed by touch, but we do have the ability built into us to observe things that are close enough to us to allow them to be touched as I have pointed out in my comment above. In addition to this, our sense of sight uses two eyes separated by a space that allows us to have a three dimensional view of the world, so that we can observe that some things that we can see are closer to us than other things. When we observe real surfaces that are in motion in relation to other surfaces around them, we can see them going behind closer surfaces and going in front of more distant surfaces. If all real surfaces move at the same speed, then they could not move in the same direction relative to each other and their surroundings and at the same time have the distance between them change.

You have the ability to look at the world differently than most people are capable of doing, however, the new and different concepts that come into your mind must always be tested by all of the observations of the real world that you can and the concepts must be in agreement with those observations. Those concepts that pass all of the observational tests can be considered valid scientific concepts. Those that don't pass them are either complete fictions or they need to be modified until they do agree with all of the observations. When you see or someone else points out to you that your concept does not completely agree with reality, you basically have three choices.

1. You can do what most do and hold onto the concept as it is and strongly talk up the places where the concept does agree with observation while at the same time ignoring and trying to distract others from seeing and exposing the places where it doesn't agree with reality. This tactic usually ultimately fails in the long run. In the few cases that it works, the result can be that scientific advancement can be held back for long periods of time. I, therefor, discourage the use of this choice.

2. You can completely throw out the concept as false and go on to look for a better concept. This can be a good strategy if the concept is shown to be completely invalid, but there is the potential that you might have almost had the right concept and a little work on it might give you the insight needed to correct it and make it work.

3. You can look at the observations that don't agree with your concept and see if modifications can be made to your concept that will bring it into complete agreement with all observations. This can not only save some valid concepts from being discarded, it can also give you insights of new concepts to look into if your current concept turns out to be uncorrectable.

In summary here are some points that you must be able to explain about the concepts that you have presented or to correct if you can't explain them, so that they agree logically internally and with external observations that I have not yet seen you present explanations of:

1. If, when a surface comes in contact with another surface, the parts of the surfaces that are in contact with each other change from being surface into being sub-surface, then vacuum or empty space must exist and be around all surfaces to allow them to continue to be surfaces. If there is no vacuum or empty space, then all surfaces are in contact with some other surface and are, therefore, no longer surfaces, but are now all sub-surfaces. This is a logical inconsistency that is internal to your concept that calls for a change in the concept to allow it to work.

2. If all surfaces travel at the same speed their relative positions would always remain the same if they are all traveling in the same direction. Those surfaces that are traveling in other directions would all have a specific speed of travel that would be dependent on their angle of travel compared to those surfaces that appear to be at rest. The greatest apparent speed would be twice the speed that all things are traveling for a surface that is traveling in the opposite direction to a surface that is traveling in the predominant direction of all other surfaces. As you change the direction of travel of that surface so that it travels closer and closer to the direction of travel of the predominate surface direction, its apparent speed would decrease until it came to a stop when it was traveling in the predominant surface direction. This would mean that all objects traveling in the same direction would travel at the same speed, so that it would be impossible for one object to pass another object that is traveling in the same direction. In reality, however, we often observe one car traveling down the road passing another car that is traveling in the same direction. When we are driving down the road in one direction, we often either pass or are passed by other cars traveling in the same direction down the road. Your concept does not agree with observed reality in this respect.

3. If all sub-surfaces traveled at a slower speed than the surfaces that surround them, they could not maintain their positions within the surface that surrounds them. They would either apply pressure to the side of the surface that was opposite to the surface's direction of travel and slow the surface down to a speed that would equal their own speed or they would be speeded up to a speed that equaled the speed of the surface, or a combination of both until their speeds were the same, or they would break out of the side of the surface that is opposite to the surface's direction of travel and be left behind. The new surface of the sub-surface that was left behind would then start to travel faster than its sub-surface and would thus leave the sub-surface behind again. This would continue until all of the sub-surface had been turned into surfaces that were internally empty of any sub-surface. Your concept does not agree with observed reality in this respect because we do not see this happen in reality.

I hope this gives you some constructive things to consider concerning your concept. Of course, you may already have considered these things and have valid answers for them in which case you can tell me about them so we can both understand your concept at the same detail level.

Sincerely,

Paul Butler

Dear Joe

I have read through your essay and agree that much of physics is abstract as opposed to the real. But abstraction is what gave power to the laws of physics! Reality has too many confusing details and aspects. Without abstract concepts like mass, speed, gravity and so on Newton's laws, for one, could not have been so effective in creating the technological miracles of the Industrial Revolution. Abstraction, however can go too far, and String Theory is a case in point.

I must admit I do not understand your concept of surface, subsurface and their constant speed. No matter, others seem to have understood. Having said that I like that you have dared to present a completely new unified way of looking physics. Much of physics needs exactly that sort of sweeping rethinking from new first principles. At any rate you are thinking about the Universe and mathematics indicates a far from decrepit mind as you claim! With very best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Joe

I cannot follow you, what is the point that skin is not a complete surface?

Regards

Dear Joe,

I went through you essay and would like to keep some points in favor and rest against.

As you mentioned " Although the real substance of the real Universe appears to us as seeming to consist of varying amounts of solid, liquid and gaseous properties, it must be re-emphasized here that all appearances are deceptive. The real Universe is not apparent and this is why it is not mathematical."

Matter is NOT made up of matter ! This is only abstraction and deceptiveness of "reality" at lower level of consciousness.

As mentioned in my references[4]

"The physicist, Professor

Hans Peter Dürr's 'Inanimate and Animate

Matter' in What is Life (2002) declares:

'Modern quantum physics reveals that

matter is not composed of matter, but reality

is merely potentiality' (p. 145). He also

writes in 'Whatever Matter Is--It's Not

Made Of Matter': '. . .the green we see [for

instance] is a quality appearing in the mind

in response to this frequency of light. It

exists only as a subjective experience in the

mind.' Professor Dürr has worked with

Werner Heisenberg for many years. Such a

personality declares in his German book

(2000), translated into English: 'Matter is

not made up of matter. Basically there is

only spirit' (p. 18). Vivekananda also said:

'You see this glass, and you know it is

simply an illusion. Some scientists tell you it

is light and vibration. All these [objects you

see], are but dreams'. Professor Lothar

Schäfer of Arkansas University affirms it

when he says: (in Lou Massa's Science and

the Written Word, 2011): 'The quantum

phenomena show that reality is a

transmaterial, transempirical, and

transpersonal wholeness' (p. 93).

But that doesn't give testimonial to the fact it rejects mathematics totally. Even mathematics can exist in abstractness ! If an observer takes physical world to be deceptive, then mathematics also is so and if physical world is real ,then mathematics also is so.It cant be that one is deceptive and another is real.

As Bernard Russell pointed out - The world is mathematical not because we know so much about it but so little.

You have also concentrated your essay on the motion. IF Zeno's paradox of motion is to be looked into, motion itself is illusion. Referring to the detailed essay in [17] in my essay --

"

ABSTRACT

David Hilbert's approach to studying the nature of continuous mechanical motion with the help of Zeno's paradox is developing. Zeno's sequence allows the detection of the latent singularity within the classical description of mechanical motion. The inception of this singularity occurs because of the accumulation of motion intervals added. The absence of that addition in the description of motion and the absence of the singularity occur outside classical mechanics only and are associated with quantum mechanics. A conclusion has been drawn that continuous mechanical motion is possible only because of the wave properties of the material particles, and such a motion is the most pictorial manifestation of the effects of quantum mechanical in the macrouniverse. The possession of wave properties is an inevitable necessity for maintaining the mobility of particles and the material bodies consisting of those particles. That leads eventually to such paradoxical mechanisms (phenomenon) of physical nature as wave-particle dualism, without which, the existences of dynamic objects and the structures of our world appear impossible.".

And the big question "where did Universe come from" is asked at lower level of consciousness because at higher level of consciousness

one can't define the constituent words itself e.g "where"(space), did(time) the Universe come(motion) from (separation) ?

And ,hence this question itself is baseless.

The links are

(1)http://www.sriramakrishna.org/admin/bulletin/_bulletin

_88047a9c37a644e3709aa3f512cf55baf130de0f.pdf

2)http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/85972061/nature-physical-motion-zenos-paradox

Thanks,

Pankaj Mani

Hi Joe--

You asked me to read and comment on your essay. I do so now, as promised.

I agree with the main thrust of your title. I, too, believe that the real universe is not mathematical. By "not mathematical", I specifically mean that I disagree with the doctrine known as "Mathematical Platonism". As I see it, physics is engaged in the business of identifying regularities in Nature. These regularities are often codified in terms of mathematics and then are called "laws of physics". These laws are necessarily of an abstract nature. As to the reason why such regularities exist, I have not a clue.

I was interested in your use of infinity. For example, on page 6 of your essay, you say "abstract least is finite", but then add that "Real infinity has no least constituent". Does this mean that you believe that real universe is infinite in scope, extent, and/or duration?

Best regards,

Bill.

Dear Joe Fisher,

As requested by you, I read your essay. You have a different world view. As you would have read my essay, you would be knowing that our word views are different, though we agree that there is something wrong with the mainstream world view.

The mainstream represents the view of the majority. And it is not without any reason. The mainstream view has many merits. But, even while agreeing that the mainstream has merits, we can have some disagreement with the main stream. But the problem is that we have to show that our word-views have more merits compared to the mainstream. And, that is not so easy.

You argue that your world-view is logical by putting forth questions. But you do not try to show that your world-view has any relative merits.

Joe,

Wow! very insightful and fiery commentary there about Newton and Ein. Newton is wrong i believe in his world view. Einstein if you read his layman's relativity book and also go through some of his quotes admits his system isn't much better than Newtons. I think his words were close to that space-time and the warp of his dynamics took the place of the ether, but that even a space-time fabric could be just as arbitrary as the ether. You thoughts sparked some in me. First a question that i doubt goes anywhere but might be worth a fun thought. Is light in transmission a real thing? Or is it just that we have reasonable cause for it's existence because this energy sytem (for example a star) lost energy in the amount that was picked up by some intrument distant from it. In other words, do we indirectly or directly observe and have evidence for light? I like that you say the universe is understandable once. Can't be too optimistic. I would look at the role of information more closely. You speak of nothingness with some disdain. What science has yet to pick up on is that nothingness is a great potential.But to have a zero state nothingness like Hawking promotes does seem far fetched. I think whether nothing exists, some zero state or a "something" before this universe existed, whether that nothingness is real or not is a great point to think about for this time in science. Your essay does this, so thank you sir!

Dear Joe,

You seem to imply in your essay that science believes in an abstract realm that underlies everything and explains everything. I think that what you say is correct: much of science DOES believe in an abstract realm, though the people involved would claim otherwise.

However, it is not necessary to believe in an abstract reality to do science. You yourself represent your thought-experience of reality (e.g. a real elephant) with symbols (i.e. the spoken word or written word "elephant", or even a stick-figure drawing of an elephant). Similarly, scientists represent their experience of reality with written and spoken symbols. Both the symbols and the thought-experience are as physically real as the actual elephant: they are physical reality - they are not abstract.

The problem occurs when scientists or philosophers mistakenly think that the symbols or the thoughts are disconnected from physical reality. I concur with your conclusion: "The real Universe am".

Cheers,

Lorraine

Joe,

Your essay is poorly written, and devoid of any academic or intellectual merit, or insight. I would posit that you are confusing the term 'realist' with 'fantasist.

I point you to the following blog, as I have no doubt its contents will pique your interest: http://www.physicsgroupie.com/2009/07/physics-crackpots.html

Humbly,

Chris