Readers' Choice: True Lies: Why Mathematics is an Illusion

The minimum description of an existential point or entity must be two different quaternions. The entity or point must change position in quaternion energy-space (space-time if you really must) in order to have existence. It must also have spatial existence however minimal in all dimensions. This makes an existential point or entity different from a mathematical point or integer which just does not and can not exist outside of abstract mathematics.In my opinion. So quaternion mathematics seems, even from this minute analysis, a superior language for describing the working of the universe.

In this linkhydrogen atom one can see that the Proton is the point, discrete and seperate, from the Electron, which is continuous and, faip, it's wavelike properties make it infinity like ? So what "seperates" the point from the continuum?

The Proton is 3-D pointlike sitting within a 2-D continuous fieldlike Electron?

Anonymous,

It would be nice to know who you are and who you are addressing. Then I could decide whether it is appropriate for me to reply or whether you want to talk to someone else. I can only say what I think and it would not be a conventional mainstream physics answer.Nice pictures by the way.

Whether or not there is a minimum difference in change of quaternion position that should form the minimum difference in quaternion frame used to model it ie whether there is a jump from position to position or continuous flow can not be known. Attempts to determine this experimentally will,as Eckard pointed out, be constrained by the limit of measurement that is possible. It will therefore depend upon the model that is chosen to represent the change. For a particle it could be assumed that one complete spin oscillation would represent 1 change of quaternion position although smaller distances being fractions of oscillations could be imagined.

Change in 4th dimensional position is not directly measurable. It is reasonable to assume that that dimension should comprise the full set of real numbers,(including those fractions without finite answer). Which is the same as for other physical processes.

oops..last "anon" was me!

A 3-D point thus has a definate boundary, it is seperate, almost an individual system. 2-D entities, are continuous, like the Electron Wave around the Proton, it is deemed continuous. But when Electrons move across to other Protons, they must be 3-D, or particle-like?

The Particle Wave Duality should really be a dimensional transport action, for the Electrons, Photons and Proton? The Electron shells are transitional points between 3-D and 2-D space's,area's ?

There is more interesting aspects for seperated and continuous boundaries.

best p.v

The magical Electron/..take a Universe size box containing a Hydrogen Atom and a single Proton, eventually these two particles will commute to a cal area, there the Electron will transpose across to the single Proton, and then back to it's original source. Now waht is interesting is the discontinuous and discreteness of it's relative positions, it leaves one Proton as an ejected Photon, and arrive's at the next Proton as a Photon of certain energy.

It seems to be that a standing Electron wave around a Proton, is really eqivelent to an ejected Photon, constrained by the dimensionality volume it occupies, pointlike but not actually a 3-Dimensional entity, until it attaches itself to the Proton? Of course Electron shells are altered vastly by the introduction of excess Protons, ie more than two-particles!

Now whilst I do not contend any greater dimensions other than 3-d2-d or 1-d, i do accept that the 11-D or even 26-D models must have their own magical transformational energies, all totally hidden of course by the very nature of our mathematical dimensional illusionary exixtence?

Hi Georgina, you wrote: There is a difference between subjective reality of experience that tells us most macroscopic objects are singular and unchanging in identity and objective reality that exists outside of that experience in which everything at every scale is continuously changing.

Conscious observer experiences universe in an objective way. He experiences what senses perceive.

In today scientific experience between perception and experience there is a mind elaboration. Because of that this experience is "rational" and not "objective".

Conscious observer and his direct and objective experience opens new dimensions in physics. We can see how much rational mind elaboration influences our experience of the universe.

Time is a first subject I work on from the point of Conscious observer.

yours amrit

Hi Paul,

In answer to your question, firstly the proton is far more massive than an electron and therefore is a far greater disturbance of the medium of space. Greater mass gives greater inertia which is the energy required to change trajectory through quaternion space. So it is less inclined to move than an electron. The centre of the proton is the exit point for the 4th dimensional axis leading into afore space around which the proton has angular momentum in 3D space and along which the proton has spin. (It can be hypothesised that the proportionality of spin and angular momentum are because it is the oscillation along the 4th dimension or spin that gives rise to the rotation in 3D space observed as angular momentum.) This is the most energetically stable position for the proton to occupy, so why should it flit around like an electron.

The electron is too small to be effected by gravity but it is caught in the disturbance caused by the spin and angular momentum of the proton or the nucleus of a larger atom. Think small leaf caught in the eddies of a stream. Within that disturbance there are regions of greater stability. It can be hypothesised that the spin of the proton gives an oscillation causing waves or bands of disturbance around the proton. The greatest stability of position for the electron being in the trough between two peaks of disturbance. But electrons also repel each other because of the particular disturbances they cause and so do not all crowd together in the same trough as that would not be stable.

Quaternion mathematics gives fractals which show repeated patterns at different scales. The quaternion arrangement of the universe also gives repeated patterns at different scales. The galaxy accretion disc surrounding dense region of luminous matter and black hole, planes of solar system including asteroid belts and dust surrounding a star and the electron "cloud" surrounding the nucleus. The pattern is the same the scale is different.

There is no such thing as a 2 dimensional object in 3D space so the 2D electron plane must be 3D but immensely thin in one of the 3 dimensions. Also it is actually 4D. The 4 dimensional spread of the so called 2D plane giving a range of universal potential energies. The highest potential energy being furthest from the centre and the lowest closest to the nucleus. The proton also must be a 4D object having thickness or spread along the 4th dimension as do all 3 dimensional objects. With respect Paul, I do not think there is any such thing as a point like "object" or thing that is not 3 dimensional within 3 dimensional space. It is a mathematical abstraction.

The electron is not a 2D continuous entity but a highly elusive and manoeuvrable 3D entity (actually 4D like all "3D" objects- think Schwartzchild sphere but spatial and energetic difference between exterior and interior rather than time), with 4 degrees of freedom within quaternion energy-space.It is the combination of spin (4th dimensional change )and change in 3D spatial position that gives the apparent wave like nature. Though it is not actually a wave but an entity with wave like change of position. I do not regard a pendulum as a wave although its movement can be described as a wave.

If one regards a particular location of space the pendulum occupies that position then vanishes then occupies it again and then vanishes. If one knows nothing about pendulums it might seem that this is quite mysterious. Likewise the electron can appear in 3D space at one position and then appear at another position seemingly without travelling between them. This is due to the additional, generally unrecognised, degree of freedom. That is a 4th spatio-energetic dimension at 90 degrees to the plane of 3D space, not time.

I do not think an electron is a photon but that the photon is the disturbance caused to the medium when an electron looses potential energy dropping to an energy level closer to the nucleus. It is the disturbance that accompanies the change in position of the electron rather than being the electron itself. This is the explanation in the example you gave also,in my opinion. It is the manifestation and evidence of the rule of conservation of energy, and the conservation of spatial change. The electron can not move without causing the movement of something else (medium) and the energy change that corresponds to that change in quaternion position of the electron also necessarily corresponds to the energy of the movement transferred to the medium.

Amrit ,

I think the reason we appear to be not in complete agreement here is because you and I are not using the term objective in the same way. I think you mean by "objective", dealing purely with that which is observed without interpretation or model. To use a photographic analogy you are using the raw file. The problem with a raw file is that it contains too much data to efficiently handle and use for other purposes.

Rendering the data into a more compact and manageable format means that some data is lost but the remaining data can be manipulated and used far more easily. That is the purpose of the explanatory model.To make the infinitely complicated comprehensible. Yes, it is rational.It is not possible to map the position of every sub atomic particle in the universe and note every minute energy change relating to each spatial change in position. That is the objective reality that I think you refer to. The "raw file" of the universe is too immense.

Quaternion mathematics is used to model all sorts of complex systems such as hydrological or meteorological systems. It does not map the position of every molecule but uses the rotations of bodies of substance to give an approximation that allows comprehension of the processes that are occurring. That is what I propose is used throughout science where a process is under investigation.

When I use the term objective reality I mean that underlying reality that exists without the observer. It can not be known by experimental observation because as soon as there is observation a subjective reality is formed. The data observed has to be selected and processed by the brain or device for the observation to exist. The data is changed by the process of observation although the objective reality itself is unchanged. (Perhaps I need to think of a new term to avoid this ambiguity of meaning that you have highlighted.) The Prime reality interface between objective and subjective reality is the limit of scientific method. Objective reality is inaccessible to that method and can only be modelled.

Amrit, I did not clarify. Your objective reality is my raw subjective reality.

That raw subjective reality has been obtained by selection of input by sense organs (or internally generated) and by activity of unconscious brain processes. It is closer to the raw objective reality than subjective reality formed by active conscious analysis of data or application of a scientific model to data but is still not (my definition of) objective reality itself.

You are not further rendering that raw subjective reality by thought or active investigation.

However If you are alive and conscious your brain is working either on external input or internal input. In a meditative state you may be able to minimise this activity but not stop it. The experience of a meditative state is not (my definition of) objective reality itself but an altered state of brain function and so altered consciousness. You can only become one with (my definition of) objective reality when you are dead. That is not to dispute the spiritual value and mental and physical health benefits of meditation.

Hi again Amrit,

I understand your objection and upon further consideration I see that I was not precise enough.

I wrote "There is a difference between subjective reality of experience that tells us most macroscopic objects are singular and unchanging in identity and objective reality that exists outside of that experience in which everything at every scale is continuously changing."

I should have said "......in which, according to this explanatory model, everything at every scale is continuously changing."

That would have shown that this was a model of objective reality rather than objective reality itself. Which as I have said on numerous occasions can not be known by any direct means. I apologise for not making this clear.

The fact that it is only a model of objective reality does in fact mean that is just another subjective reality. However it is a logical explanatory representation of objective reality based on a self consistent model. Rather than spiritual acceptance of ultimate unknowability. Both can be correct. The ultimate "raw file" of the universe is incomprehensible because the amount and complexity of data can not be handled by a human mind. It has to be reduced to a comprehensible approximation and model for logical understanding of its function and for use as a predictive scientific framework.

amrit,

I do also understand that one can choose to ignore the complexity and ultimate un-knowability and rather just accept that everything is just one. This viewpoint is still compatible with the model I have been proposing. As every energy change is conserved within quaternion space and every change in spatial position is conserved, in that it causes another spatial change in position, then everything is connected within energy-space. There are spatial and energetic boundaries to those things we regard as objects but there is also continuous change in those objects and continuity between everything. One might say the "one entity" is continuously flowing and changing in quaternion space, manifesting different forms, which we identify, but it is still the "one entity".

Yes Georgina,

there is only one energy in the universe taking different forms. My research is how to build an adequate picture of this permanent change. One is clear. Flow of change is timeless, has no duration. Duration comes into existence when we measure energy flow with clocks.

yours amrit, Eternity is NOW.

Paul,

just to clarify a couple of points from my reply to your question.

When I said that a proton is actually a 4D object like all 3D objects, I was attempting to say that -all objects we regard as 3D with in 3D space are actually quaternion objects within quaternion energy-space. They are certainly not not 4 vector dimensional objects with in space-time. I hope this clarification avoids a misunderstanding of the meaning I was trying to convey.

I also said that an electron has 4 degrees of freedom. I should have perhaps said that an electron within an atom, as it can be regarded as moving within a 2D plane (which must actually be a 3D structure, but very thin, within 3D space, and therefore also ultimately quaternion in structure) is not moving significantly within 1 of the 3 vector spatial dimension and therefore is only using 3 of the 4 available degrees of freedom. That does not mean it can not use that other vector spatial degree of freedom if disturbed from its stable position by a photon of disturbance.

Amrit ,

I'm glad that we do seem to share similar understanding with regard to the ultimate nature of the universe and the question of time. Even though we may express our understanding differently.

You said "there is only one energy in the universe taking different forms. My research is how to build an adequate picture of this permanent change."

Herein lies the problem. "The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao." Tao te ching, Lao Tzu

As soon as one tries to describe or model the objective reality, it becomes a subjective reality fashioned by the working of the mind rather than the raw existence itself. I must accept that any model is just a model and can only ever be a model. A representation, not the "ultimate entity" itself. The questions I now seek to answer are... How good a likeness does a particular model provide and can it be improved in any way to correspond more closely to observation and experience?

Dear Georgina,

for 30 years I watch my mind and I can tell you there is a lot of ideas in scientific mind that have no correspondence with "objective" reality.

"Scientific picture" of the world can be sharpened only by awakening of the observer. This is where physics meets pure meditation, pure witnessing of the mind. I live in timeless universe that is real, objective. New definition of physical time as "Physical time is run of clocks in space" is the first step into physics that will reach to the ultimate peacks of the human understanding and knowing.

yours sincerely, amrit

Amrit,

I am not sure that the experience of meditation is necessary for the improvement of physics. The meditative state does give insight into an altered perception of reality. One can realise that experience is not itself the underlying reality. However it does not in itself give rise to explanation of either the everyday experience, which is a biologically generated simulation of external reality or the underlying raw existence, that provides the input to the biological simulation that is experienced.

Advancement in the comprehension of neurological processes that allow the organism to generate a simulation of external reality from the input from the senses will allow greater understanding of the experience of reality. This is the sbjective reality that most people will consider as being real.

Underlying objective reality can never be known. (The brain in a vat conundrum.) All data passes through the Prime Reality Interface from objective reality to interface with the human organism. Either directly at the sense organs or via artificial detector and computer before interfacing with the human at the sense organs, giving a subjective reality simulation of objective reality.

As objective reality can not be known it can only be modelled. To be of use in scientific prediction the model should allow the generation of input that will give rise to the subjective reality that is experienced in an everyday alert state of consciousness. By this I mean the model should generate those observations that are made by scientific experiment and everyday experience. Not those experiences generated by the brain during a meditative trance.

The modelling of underlying raw objective reality is different from intuitive and or logical acceptance of an ultimately unknowable and indescribable reality that can never be investigated via the scientific method because of the Prime reality interface. This I accept completely. The Prime reality interface is the limit of the scientific method.

Any model or "picture" of objective reality is only ever that, a model or "picture". An approximation, simplification, representation, impression, analogy or metaphor. Many religions use such pictures. Science can also provide a model which is not rival to these religious pictures but another is another way of representing the same underlying reality that religions through out the ages have sought to explain.

A scientific explanatory model of reality can never be scientifically proven to be the underlying reality but can be shown to comply with all scientific observations. Therefore being as scientific as is possible under that unavoidable constraint. To believe that the model is real in itself would be to turn science into a religion. The scientific model is not the reality itself but a means of logically comprehending experience. The model one then chooses, scientific or religious, as giving the most personally acceptable means of comprehending underlying reality is a matter of personal preference and choice.

Anyone who thinks that the raw objective existence or reality can be known by the human mind should perhaps meditate on the matter before posting.

Dear Georgina

A key question of cosmology is:

"Does universe run in time or is time running in the universe?"

By watching, witnessing the mind one discovers

that time is running in the universe as a run of clocks.

Universe itself is timeless, universe is NOW.

yours amrit