WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Joe,

You started off your essay in a way that made me think you were going to criticize the loose use of language in physics (an approach shared with Wittgenstein and the logical positivists). But before long it became clear you were being quite careless about language yourself. For instance you repeatedly spoke of all surfaces as moving at "constant speed," but never said speed with respect to what. Moreover your whole concept does not jell. Consider a sphere, real or abstract. Suppose it is spinning on a fixed axis. Now all parts of the surface are in motion. But at constant speed? I think not. The Earth's oblateness is due to the higher rotary speed at the equator than at the poles.

Tom Phipps

Joe,

I read your paper and was not really able to understand what you mean with your surfaces. Since this is your major point, I am affraid I cannot really comment your paper.

There however is an exception. I do not share with you at all your point on the existence or not of the zero. Just imagine you are counting real matches. Then if there are no matches, then there are zero matches and this zero is physical.

Jean-François.

Dear Joe,

what you write about zero makes sense. We all would like to know what sort of zero energy fluctuations let things happen.

Good luck

Lutz

Dear Joe,

I read your abstract, and have a look at your essay. I cannot follow your logic, and I disagree on most of your conclusions. Besides, we are on opposite faces of the universe: you are a realist, and I am an informationalist.

Have happy time within your universe.

My best regards

mauro

Dear Joe,

I have seen your last message on my blog.

I have already commented on an early message from you (remenber the man shouting in a cardboard box ?) but the whole conversation seems to have disappeared from my blog ...

Cheers,

Patrick

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