WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

At academia.edu, K. Abraham has posted his introduction to tetryonic theory. If other researchers work is to be declared as mad or silly, does not interest me.Every explanation of the real world has a limited range and there is no reason to label other approaches as pathological.

Hi Joe,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I understood your use of the word abstract after I read yours. Your message is an important one. Since we use tools like mathematics to help our thinking it is easy for some to start believing they represent reality. I am glad you quoted my belief that our futile efforts to understand nature are not nature. I agree with you they are abstractions. My belief that "all is information" may not convey the same idea to you but to me it means "it is an abstraction".

Cheers

Dear Sir,

You are right that the real universe is not mathematical in the absolute sense. Mathematics is not the sole language of Nature. It depicts only its quantitative aspect. You are also right that what we call rest is the net null sum of all forces acting on a body. Nothing is truly at rest in Nature. Every object is only relatively at rest on its 'ground' or 'base'. Since this aspect of reality is not evident in observation, you can describe it as abstract. But objects and interactions are real. We define reality as everything that exists (has a limited structure that evolves in time), is intelligible (perceivable or knowable as the result of measurement) and communicable (describable in a language as defined in our essay: Transposition of information to another system's CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy. The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context).

We differentiate real from the abstract in the following manner: Space, Time and coordinates arise from our concept of sequence and interval. When it is related to objects, we call the interval space. When it is related to events, we call the interval time. When we describe inter-relationship of objects, we describe the interval by coordinates. Everything is subject to time evolution in space. There is a fixed pattern of all events. These are: being (situation leading to its creation), becoming (its creation itself), (growth due to addition of other particles/events), transformation (as a result), transmutation (due to the same effect - incompatible/excess addition), destruction (change of form as a consequence) to start a new chain. Observation/measurement (perception) is of two types. Some things can be directly observed and measured (which you call real universe). But space, time and coordinates that have no physical existence, but are only inferred from indirect observation/measurement of two successive objects or events or arrangements. This second category belongs to the realm of the abstract. Motion also belongs to this category because space, where motion takes place, is abstract. Yet, it can be measured indirectly by linking it to real objects in space. Einstein's zero commencement point belongs to the abstract coordinates. Hence it has to be linked to real objects for meaningful use.

One word of caution: mirages are also observed. But such observation is dependent on a vantage position and not invariant (falsifiable) from different positions. Thus, they are neither real nor abstract: they are only imaginary combinations of real objects which cannot be physically coupled - like complex numbers. What you call a 'zero physical state' is not zero, because zero is the absence of something that does not exist at here-now (where observation/ measurement takes place), but exists elsewhere. Absolute zero in temperature parlance is a certain temperature threshold, not zero temperature.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Joe,

Your essay tells its story from an uncommon, although interesting perspective. However, I think you mistake the image of an object for the object itself. The image is conveyed by travelling light.

As to your question: "Where did the universe come from?"

The Universe can only come from nothing. If there was a "where" from whence the universe can come, that "where" would be the universe itself. The Universe can therefore only come from "Nowhere" if there was a beginning.

Regards,

Akinbo

The "Sunya" as it is called in Sanskrit supposedly holds the uproots to reality which when expounded given the gift of sublets of "sifr" in Arabic and "Zero" in English.

Your quest for zero is an answer for the empty space.

Great subject! Good luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Joe,

I read with great interest your essay, made in the spirit of profound Cartesian doubt. I only have one question: when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty and lost touch with reality?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Joe,

a very interesting essay to read. You are tackling some really important issues but it frustrates me slightly because you are taking a different explanatory pathway to my own and naturally want to yell "Hey Joe, this way".

Its a really good point that we [without use of x-ray machines or their ilk] only see surfaces. That is, I agree, reality but I would restrict it to Image reality, a sub set of the Entirety of reality. I think re not seeing objects moving at different speeds, we are not actually seeing substantial objects themselves but our sensory systems fabrication of images of them.

Likewise the [image of an] object can as you say get smaller [as distance between the observer and [source]object increases].Its really interesting that this facet of relativity has had little attention. Though Julian Barbour on his http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html says "Relativity of size is such an attractive principle, I long believed that a dynamics of pure shape would one day be found, but in the last two years my thinking has changed somewhat." I have only alluded to this size relativity in my own essay by indicating the relevance of projective geometry to Image reality formation.

Enough said- an enjoyable easy read, profound ideas and thoughts. I hope you find other readers who appreciate where your conclusions are coming from even if not exactly agreeing with them. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Joe Fischer,

My impression is that you refer to ontology, the nature of reality is ontic while its description is epistemic. Quantum theory happens to be epistemic and there seems to be no other way, while classical theory is ontic. May be a higher stage of mathematics is able to clarify this discrepancy (categories or so). There is an interesting essay by Laurence Hitterdale that constructively criticizes the mathematical universe hypothesis. Physical theories are recognized true if they are useful in their range of application. I tend to admit that mathematical physics is not enough to talk about the real world, if any. But I like that you strongly insist that this important question of ontology has to be investigated in physics. Do I understand you correctly?

Michel

Dear Joe

Thanks for the essay.

Is it not true, ours like "real" observers (whose are fundamentally intrinsic quantized and able only to make communications with his/her external universe only through some forms of quantized signals to have "real perceptions" about IT) could never make any to and fro communications with that conceptual "Abstract zero" or "Absolute zero", or infinity, indifferent whether that would be a mathematical or physical? How one such observer could develop a precise real perception about any of those supposed "Abstract" events which are absolutely zero communicating or receiving any signal or message?

Otherwise its Ok.

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

(A tale of two logics)

Sir, thanks so much for your comment on my essay. This was an effective invitation to read yours. Since we seemingly defend two different approaches, the confrontation could be fruitfull. The importance given to the notion of surface is very interesting and I shall certainly immerse myself with it. I could not empeach myself to put your thinking about the zero in relation with the Heisenberg's principle without being able to go further. Concerning the distinction between the abstract and the real world... it's ok except that since we have nothing else than our real brain to construct abstractions which certainly are real flows of hormons and chimical transmitters... I miss the reason why you insist so much on that point (my thesis: we don't have to care about the abstract distinction between abstraction and reality since the abstractions live in the same real world than ours!). The pragmatism and the need of realism in a scientific approach forces us to make choices (the abstractions) that we confront with the realities. Certainly is it at the end just a circular logic inside which we are testing ourself and contempling our own image... but where is the problem since we have to live and to try to understand where and who we are?

Best regards.