Does division of extension mean the same in mathematics as it does in physics? by Akinbo Ojo

Depends on how you have defined the operation and what you mean with the question. Provided that you mean the normal addition law in the natural numbers, it's a certainty, if you ask for mathematical proof. If you ask for the physical/observational truth, you will ever only get a high probability.

Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for the comment you made about my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL My essay explains how the real Universe is occurring. Reality does not have an abstract uncommon, but abstract interesting perspective. I did not mistake an abstract image of an abstract object for the abstract object itself. You did that. Abstract images may be abstractly conveyed by abstract traveling abstract light, however, real light can only appear provided it is seen as adhering to a real surface that is traveling at the constant speed of surface.

Only an abstract universe could come from an abstract nothing.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

Wow. You obviously put a lot of thought into this essay and I congratulate you on your effort. I found it very challenging to read partly because I couldn't see the "point" (no disrespect, but pun intended). I realize that it is typical of philosophers to pick a detail such as you did and obsess over it until they have pulled every possible string to its limit, but as an applied physicist, it is hard for me to follow without a clear end in sight.

However, in regards to your hypothesis about time, you said, "Of course, not everybody accepts the cosmological theory, so we are assuming its correctness." Well, in fact, I disagree with the big-bang theory as well as interpretations of singularities as being black holes in spacetime. As I explained in my essay (Doctors of the Ring...) these are mis-perceptions of unified concepts (metaphorically represented by the "golden ring"). If you look at a circle from its side (or as a shadow on Plato's cave) you will see a line. And if there is a particle moving continuously on the ring, the shadow would make it look like an oscillation from one end to the other and back. If you believe that perspective, you will be trapped (under the spell) and won't rise above the plane of opposites to see their unity.

Because the whole cosmological theory is based upon the notion that space is 3D and time is 1D, which is a lop-sided expansion of s = ct, correct mathematics has led to a lop-sided interpretation. It's a foregone conclusion.

I have been working on a model of space-time-motion (which I am about to submit for publication) that represents space and time as conformal projections of motion onto a two-dimensional S-T plane.

*Motion is what is real; it gives matter form. The word motion represents a complementary (unified) concept, i.e. "motion" is a single word used to express complementary antonyms (moving and not moving or at rest); yet the moving state can be expressed in terms of gradable parameters (displacement (s) and clock-time (t)),

*The gradable parameters, s and t numerate (i.e. quantize) and denominate (i.e. reference to standard time scale) the moving state to provide a gradable spectrum by the ratio, v=s/t;

*The speed of light in natural units is simply the state at which the ratio is 1:1

Although I don't follow your logic, I think I agree with your statement that "time is the separator and conferor of discreteness on space". My reason has more to do with the fact that time is the scale that denominates motion, thus giving it a unit magnitude of change. The "curse of Zeno" may be resolved simply by shifting the reference from zero to unity. Any unit of measurement is defined by the "unit", i.e. one unit, not zero. "Zero" represents nothingness so any physically measurable model that includes zero length or displacement, is subject to Zeno's paradox. The concept of time is also subject to the "curse". A unit of time is "measured", although it is not a physical observable, by the motion of a clock (or grains of sand etc). So setting t=0 for analysis of a moving particle means zero relative motion, which is the rest state, so the moving model does not apply.

I hope I made some sense, but it is very difficult to explain. If you are interested, you should read my first draft of the Space-time-motion diagram at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045. I have made some changes, mainly to cut down on the philosophy and background material, so check back in a few days to get the latest version.

Oh yes, as for Parmenides philosophy: clearly I disagree with his view that change is impossible, but I agree that existence is timeless because time is nothing more than a scale for eternal (timeless - no beginning and no end) change.

Best regards,

Ted

Your work convincingly relates that mathematics and physics are more artful.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Hello Akinbo,

I was thinking about your idea of minimum physical length and whether probabilities of 2+3=5 exist depending of the length of the object. It could be useful to put objects into perspective to see if there is consistency.

Maybe you can create a single log scale going from the maximum size object we know (universe) to the minimum size object we known. On this scale, you can highlight from what size we are starting to have issues with standard mathematics. Maybe it has already been done?

Regards,

Christophe

I liked the simplicity of the essay. I completely agree with your postulate to imagine points coming into and going out of existence exactly when needed. I call this the emergence of space from the actions of objects in time as opposed to the a priori existence of space as an infinity of points coming and going as a place for action and objects.

You further argue that dividing an object with neural action does not involve energy, but obviously any thought of dividing does take energy; the energy needed to sustain that neural packet of a moment of thought. In fact, it would in principle take an infinite energy for the infinite thoughts of dividing infinitely...thank goodness most minds are not prone to this neurosis.

There are two universes; math and physics, and math divides an object of our mind into an infinity of smaller objects with a neural action of our mind. Physics divides an object external to our mind into some physical limit of smaller objects with actions using other objects and of course using energy as well. Math represents objects as we imagine them to be and physics represents objects as they actually are outside of our mind. But our mind does use energy for all thought.

The irony is that it is by the neural action of our mind that we imagine both the infinity of smaller objects in an imaginary reality as well as the finite atoms of real objects. In other words, math equally well describes both the infinite as well as the finite. In particular, can infinitesimal points exist in the lonely nothing of empty space? Or is it only objects, time, and action that exist? It is not only our science that makes an object out of empty space, something out of nothing, space seems to emerge from our neural reality as well.

1.5, entertaining

1.0, well written

2.1, understandable

2.0, relevance to theme

6.6 total

Some people did the exercice: www.scaleoftheuniverse.com/

Based on today knowledge, the universe ranges from: 10^-35 to 10^27

Quantum phenomena appear for quite large objects.

http://www.cjoint.com/15fe/EBrsomy3XT2.htm

If our mathematics applies to the large universe. Would it mean that the mathematics of very small objects applies in our scale?

I've replied to your comments of my essay in my essay comment section. I comment on your essay in the interest of dialectic discourse.

Your essay raises many conceptual issues that should be addressed by current physics. A new physics model of the universe is needed. The new model should take decisions about the issues you raise.

I ask a different question of my physics. I think the interest of physics is the prediction of observations and the usefulness of such knowledge to the survival of us (our gene, our progeny, etc.). If a set of definitions fail to result in the advancement of physics, they have little use in physics. However, humanity has experienced may times some set appearing to have no use at a given time only to have a use found later. So math study and documentation keeps them alive. I reject the Zeno and other such paradoxes as not useful. But keeping such speculation in mind may help the development of a new model. If you think Zeno should be considered, you suggest how.

The models in physics includes models of observations we predict quite well. Outside of these zones are hypothesis that need to be developed. Outside of this are speculations. Then there is metaphysics that usually has many poorly defined and inconsistent defined concepts. Then religion covers the areas not even within physical speculation. Dragons are beyond speculation, the lack of good definition become the problem. The beginning (Christian theology) or the eternal universe (Hindu theology) is religion. Abstraction about this in current knowledge is meaningless because we lack sufficient definition.

Multiplication is the successive addition of a number. The inverse of this operation is not division - the inverse of multiplication is successive subtraction. Division as currently defined has only a calculation convenience in which great care to avoid many physical pitfalls must be taken. Often this requisite care is not taken that results in non-physical results.

Your 2+3=5 query: The issue you raise has to do with the definition of the components of the equation. Let's take the numbers to be counting of things and the normal, decimal numbering system. If you have other definitions, they should be explained. After this in physics, the things need to be carefully defined to fit the physics of the paper that is usually done in the paper. If the definitions are to fit observation and are self-consistent, then physics takes the result as certain. Later observation may indicate falsity of some part of the argument that would conclude rejection of the hypothesis. For example, Take 2 boards of similar cross section, one 2 feet long another 3 feet long. Is 2 feet of board plus (combine) 3 feet of board the same (equal) a board 5 feet long. Note the thing we are counting is a single board of the stated length. If the physical goal is to span a distance of 4 feet, the equality is false. If the physical goal is to measure or separate other things such as in a construction, the equality is true as either structure can fulfill the need. Both concepts are used in the carpentry craft. Be very careful with your definitions and the consistent use of your definitions.

My model of the universe suggested in my essay is that the universe components are continually being injected into our universe through sources (center of spiral galaxies) and ejected from our universe through sinks (center of elliptical galaxies). This model has been tested (1) by explaining several mysteries of both the Big Bang and cyclical models and (2) showing correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics

to the successful parts of current models. BTW my universe can be bounded and flat as I mention in my essay. The Newtonian view of gravity suggests the universe must be unbounded (infinite). The General Relativity view suggests the universe in bounded by being spherical. Unfortunately, the data indicates the universe is flat (or if it is spherical, the radius must be much greater than the Hubble regression allows).

I interpret Parmenides as suggesting the universe is more akin to Hindu tradition of an eternal universe with each incarnation being like a long line of ants - all the same and repeating. I reject division as a legitimate physics operation. Therefore, Zeno assumption does not reflect reality.

I address your ``cutting'' and ``separator'' in the comment in my essay. Non-zero breadth is my 2 dimensional hod. The hod separates the plenum (GR space) density divergence. The hods in the universe have already ``cut'' the universe in their introduction at the Source. So all that remains is to move them around to achieve the ``cut'' that is required.

A note about your mention of the energy mass equation: The equation and its use does not specify if the mass is being converted to energy or if the mass is a container (like a jug) of a give amount if inertial energy. The problem as I see it is the definition of ``mass'' is very poor.

Akinbo,

There is something that I wanted to mention to you regarding the .pdf file that I posted for you in my forum. For the function f(x) = ax^2, the value for (deltay/deltax) = 0 for x = -(deltax/2). Isn't it curious that there is a zero root at the midpoint of a segment that cannot be divided? How do you interpret this?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

``Redefinition of things that are already defined is one way to resolve paradoxes and absurdities. But then such redefinitions must stand up to scrutiny and should be verifiable or falsified.''

That is they must be useful. Zeno and Penrose suggest a definition of division that is not useful in general.

``I like your definition of Multiplication and Division. It can resolve paradoxes of motion like Zeno's, if "Real numbers do not apply to distance" as you say.''

Division and therefore the real numbers such as 1/3, pi, etc. is a transformation that is not physical. Hence, my definition of the inverse of multiplication. There may be some argument about whether irrational, transcendental, etc. numbers are real because all distances along a line are either greater than or less than the irrational number. That is there is no distance along a line that equals the irrational number. This also suggests the problem with Penrose where again we have the ``divide'' definition issue. I suggest this as a way to avoid the things like Zeno's paradox, which are not consistent with observation (physical). After all we can go through a door.

My own contention is that the plenum is discrete and also continuous in some sense. Thus displaying a duality. Continuous because there is no distance between its lengths, but discrete because those lengths can perish or be created from Nothing. The fundamental unit of my plenum is the extended (not zero-dimensional) point.

Can this concept be reduced to a hypothesis and measurement? Mine, at least, has been applied to cosmology and the double-slit observations.

Dear Dr. Ojo! For a practising physician, syntropy is a very vital concept, because life is all 'we have'. In my opinion, Dr.Ulisse di Corpo very well speaks about: The Law of Syntropy' in his latestst e-book, based on Schrödinger, Szent-Györgyi and Fantappie. Retro-causality is a key concept of this medical approach which looks at conditioning and conditions. Best wishes and cordially: stephen (www.lifeenergyscience.it)

www.lifeenergyscience.it (typo/sorry).