WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

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

My rating made only a slight difference. But as the competition ends congrats for looking at and commenting on many essays even if we don't agree on all points.

Regards,

Akinbo