Physics versus Mathematics and Logic.

Quote (fom Angorabasta)

"Entities" are formed whenever there's considerable difference in timing of some of parameteres of a process. But who's parameterizing, anyway?

We may be unable to account for real world physics with mathematics and logic. Never-the-less, it seems that we will not be able to discredit real world physics with mathematics and logic, which is in accord with the notion of "scale" in MM.

In other words, process leads us to affirm, and reaffirm (ad infinitum, as the trend goes) that real worlds physics is rational on a scale that is infinite and infinitisemal.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(from Jimi)
Please articulate your hypothesis coherently. I can't see why, on a cartesian plane, nothing (let's call it the "zero" [x] axis) is different from the "everything" (call it the [y] axis).

Both trend towards infinity on an infinite and an infinitisemal scale.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jimi, I am trying my hardest to articulate the best that I can. Please bare with me, I'm not anywhere near the same level as you and many others.
I will try my best to explain better, it is very-very difficult because it is extremely complex.
Your statement above is in the "NOW" part of a formula. Yes, from the "NOW" stage you could go infinitly in any direction if you make that your "NEW" start point but how did you get to that point to begin with? What are the other parts of the formula? In your example, you are making a new starting point and stating that it trends towards infinity. your statement is correct however what you just did is restart the entire formula to a new "false" beginning. Actually you may be trending towards the place you just were which means until you get to that point you're trending nowhere. Again, the hypothosis would be that "everthing", with the exception of the original entity "NOTHING", is reliant upon something else; The creation of a "NEW" beginning. At the beginning,"NOTHING" created 1 basic element, then 2, then 4, then more and more until it created time, space, and everything else. From there, all of these basic elements started creating everything in existance or ever will exist. At some point it hit critical mass and created the universe. The hypothosis is that the entity "NOTHING" created EVERYTHING. Example:(2xH+O=H^2O, water is the new product created from hydrogen and oxygen) Water is dependant on both hydrogen and oxygen. What creates hydroden? What creates oxygen?
Is infinity reliant on time and space? Can infinity exist without time and space? Can time and space exist without infinity? Isn't infinity just a measurement of the two? Space is reliant upon something. Time is reliant upon something. "NOTHING" isn't reliant upon anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(from Jimi)
To address the original proposition of this particular forum, may we assume that that process is merely a function of entity. "Time" is a limitation (imperfect/susceptible to change), whereas "entity" is limitless (ie. perfect/immutable/unchangeable) in it's relation to other entities (being limitless and unchangeable in thier constitution, based in the infinity of macroscopic and microscopic scale).
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I agree completely. "Time" is a limitation (imperfect/susceptible to change), whereas "entity" is limitless (ie. perfect/immutable/unchangeable) in it's relation to other entities (being limitless and unchangeable in thier constitution, based in the infinity of macroscopic and microscopic scale).

Yes, I know. Next you're going to ask "who created the entity NOTHING". The hypothosis would state that "Nothing" created itself. This is where I don't think all of us together could even come close. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Quote [Patrick]: Jimi, I am trying my hardest to articulate the best that I can. Please bare with me, I'm not anywhere near the same level as you and many others.


Believe me, I consider myself the least qualified to participate in these forums (a linguist, not a physicist; but a mediocre amatuer astronomer and believer in a future inter-disciplinary solution to the woes of not only Astronomy, but of Scholasticism in general).

Boldly, and to the detriment of my name (which does not exist) in the eyes of Academia, I would assert that the notion of "nothing" (imaginary) is the reaction of free agents (eg. persons) against the "everything" (existant).

Time is directly related to meaning. And meaning is entirely non-physical (and yet it exists, playing a vital role in things like this forum). Time may come to an end at any time, just as new meaning may come into existence at any time. The termination of time-flow would simply reveal the perfection of the interrelation of scales, which already exists in all it's harmony. This is inferring a "fractal" and limitless nature to the universe.

In this construct, time may be created at any point along the spectrum of never-ending scales, to allow the operation of freedom for it's inhabitants (each of which is in possession of an infinite permutablity of microscopic scale (ie. thus freedom of will and responsibility).

I think it's worth having a stab at actually answering Agorabasta's original posting in this thread (it kind of got high-jacked by Patrick's theory on Nothing versus Everything!). I think we have to take into account the fact that we are human, and as such, have a tendency to force our language framework onto whatever entity, system or set of functions we are considering. When discussing physics, we apply mathematics as the language to describe its various processes. This is because it is currently the best fit we have. Like it or loathe it, mathematics allows us to predict to some degree the workings of nature. Maybe not just a human trait - even Pavlov's dogs can feel nothing short of pleased with themselves when they figure out that pressing the lever will reward them with a Scooby Snack. So it is with us; when we figured out the mathematical relationship between volts, current and resistance, we got a real buzz; good grief, we had the power(!) to predict the results of a physical process in the real world! This re-enforced our belief in the flawless appropriateness of mathematics and we joyfully marched on to even greater achievements, collecting our snacks on the way. As a result of this Cosmic Pavlovian reward system, mathematics becomes the de rigour approach to physics. The killer blow comes when the mathematics and the physics don't match up. The initial reaction is then to try to make reality fit the numbers, or, if this fails, the classic solution, add a "special" constant which will make everything balance - Einstein reluctantly and erroneously did this once, and in later years called it the biggest blunder of his life (if you're not familiar with Einstein's cosmological constant, check out itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/fudge.html for an overview).
The underlying difficulty is that mathematics is a human language, and like all languages, it is limited in its application. There are ways to approach this problem, the simplest being to expand the language. Agorabasta mentions a problem in field predictability when considering complex antenna - I may be wrong, but I think that problem is being resolved to some extent by combining fractal geometric concepts with Maxwell's theory - this is a fairly new approach, but illustrates how the language of mathematics is being developed to deal with real problems in physics (AB - feel free to chastise me if I've miss-stated this application <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>). Thusfar we've been able to resolve most of our difficulties in modelling reality by adapting our language to fit it. We've added calculus, topology, fractal mechanics, chaos theory and several other offshoots since the good old days of arithmetic, and some of these wild child branches are so outlandish, that their right to a position within the Body Mathematic is often queried by the old guard.
My own stance is that mathematics currently fits the bill and does a pretty decent job of modelling reality. Humans, especially scientists, are interested in quantities - hence the number system; artists, for example, take a more relaxed approach to the world, and consider it in terms of its qualities, and as yet, there is no formalised system of quantifying, or probably more correctly, qualifying this approach, since it's not been considered as scientific, or needful of rigorous scientific methodology (by either party!). Maybe finding some more basic or meaningful set of building blocks could yield insights into the cosmos, perhaps the artist's ability to simply look at the stars and find them "beautiful" might hold some insight which we have yet to grasp or understand. [cont'd next post...]

[...cont'd from previous post]
But we need to know the sorts of answers we are looking for before we couch the questions in a specific language (mathematical or otherwise), and at this moment in history we are looking for numbers, be it the speed of gravity, the distance to the edge of the universe, or how long before our sun goes nova. I think that before we attempt to employ other "languages" in considering the cosmos, we need to consider the quality of the answer we are seeking. Then we've got a really big task on our hands in inventing a whole new branch of, well, not sure what you'd call it - Meta-mathematics?

[PS - Can we get a larger maximum volume on posts or do I just need to be less long-winded?]

Atko,

The use of fractal geometry you've mentioned is very important. I do believe that all of our current physics begs to be somehow reformulated in the Cellular Automata formalism. Obviously, such reformulation must be inherently inexact if granulation of cells is coarse enough to level the complexity. So every "real-world" value considered in such restricted formalism must be considered as inherently inexact, and must be treated as such all the way through calculations. Hence some special arithmetics/mathematics must be developed for such inherently inexact numbers, and every formula must produce the (mean and error and shape of distribution) and use the input in exactly the same form. This way we could avoid the arbitrary "round-ups", those ugly dearly beloved of modern physicists.

That's all my personal opinion, no more!