Essay Abstract

We know the world from the perspective of topology. We present the world from the perspective of time. From Newton we have assumptions - a simple localization and the real number system. We present the Ramsey sentence as the tendence eliminate this assumptions about the existence outside the real operation and to replace then by automorphism on the basis of these real operation. The dual change of syntax give the extremal change of semantic. Mathematics and physics are only a play.

Author Bio

I'm teacher of math and chess player. I'm intresting about the problem of successor in reality.

Download Essay PDF File

19 days later
9 days later

Dear Dariusz,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

    4 days later

    Dear Dariusz,

    If I may give some constructive feedback on your essay, I think most people, even those with a mathematical background, will find it to be inaccessible. To give one example of many, I actually know some modal logic, yet what the systems you list in your table on the purported duality between R and Q(\sqrt{3}) have to do with it completely escapes me, and you never mention them again. There seems to be far too little in the way of explanations of how the different parts of your vision hang together. Presenting numerous quotes by others in sequence does not help much. Without the explanations some of the numerical relationships seem little more than numerology.

    It is a shame that communicating your ideas is presenting such a stumbling block because it seems that you have thought a lot about various aspects of the relationship between physics and mathematics. For future submissions I would recommend that you have someone read through your paper first and tell you what they understood it to say.

    I hope your found my constructive criticism useful.

    Best wishes,

    Armin

      Dear Armin,

      Thank you for your comment. A theory of evolution offers an imortant methological argument against explicit definitions and closed semantic. Theoretical concepts must be open and minimal. Simplicity of the real operation does not equal with simplicity of experience. Unitary forms do not reduce relationships. They order them. The continuum is not an error. Using only the continuum is a Ponzi scheme. The continuum fraction using only two bits is the greatest open world. It's your home. It's not explain. It's not obligation. It's responsibility.

      Best wishes,

      Dariusz Krzywicki

      Dear Joe,

      Newton or Einstein? 571/41 -> 7+4sqrt(3). It's not about the perihelion of Mercury, but about the level of quantum human body and brain. In mathematics we are not looking for zero, but the unit class [0, 1]. Structural conception of existence is represented by an idemplotent x^2 - x = 0. The true figure of life is x^2 - x = 0.5. In physics Schrodinger present 0 Kelvin degrees as order from order, as Nernst principle - See "What is Life". Different processes have different Kelvin zeros. Problem of generalization third principle of thermodynamics - different proces have the same zero (in mathematics sense).

      Best wishes,

      Dariusz Krzywicki