- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Devin Harris <harrisdev.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:54:09 -0700

Thanks to David Seaman and Bruno Marchel for acknowledging my posts.

Bruno wrote in response to:

*>All
*

*>mathematical structures necessarily have in common an existence.
*

This does not necessarily help. You could have said that all

mathematical structure have in common the fact that they ere equal

to themselves. But this does not help to give existence to the

set V = {x : x = x} in naive set theory.

You are making a mathematical structure a thing, so that the thing is

equal to itself. If you notice I write and propose ideas from what may

seem like an alien perspective to others, perhaps without normal

definitive sets. To me, infinity is not a series. Real time, for

example, distinct from measurable clock time, is simply one enormous

moment, without beginning or end.

Above I am saying that all mathematical structures exist undivided from

one another. All are here in the very same space we exist within. It is

a simple truism and for certain no argument can change this inevitable

truth. There is one physical Universe and one mathematical Universe,

un-divided by such things as universes that don't exist or mathematical

structures which don't exist. There is no meaning to the idea of

division between one structure and another, if there is no non-medium or

non-thing to divide them.

And yes, the physical and mathematical Universe are the same. Any TOE

must unify all structures into one whole, and so model the definite not

as a multiplicity of worlds or things; a grande total sum, but rather as

a synthesis of many lesser parts of one grande whole, such as positive +

negative = a neutral whole.

Because we interpret the world to be many things, we think of the

maximum universe as the maximum number of things, rather than a

synthesis of positive and negative and so two sets of infinities.

We cannot bend our ordinary math, based upon the existence of definite

things, toward understanding a Universe of infinities. The axioms do not

allow it, since zero is nothing and numbers count an endless array of

things without completion. Example: the sum total of a positive infinity

(counting up indefinitely) and a negative infinity (counting down

indefinitely) is of course an indefinite sum. As well, to make things

worse, since zero is defined as no definite things, the sum, if we allow

ourselves to imagine a sum, it produces a cancellation, a sum of

nothing, when in fact the whole is a synthesized combination, an

everything, which by nature is not relative to anything but its internal

self (as a friend of mine, Steven Kaufman would say).

Mmmh... My (humble) opinion is that "existence" is relative.

Well, definition is relative, but existence is not relative. All

positive numbers and all negative numbers are relative. But zero is not

relative . You are not alone. Collectively we see and describe only the

defined world of things as real in physics and math.

Existence appears indefinite because it doesn't have an opposite. This

is the precise reason everyone believes existence is relative, because

we think the world is made of things and that whatever is without

definition is not existent. Still, the laws of physics break down at a

singularity, where there is no longer a distinction between time and

space. It isn't that there is no such thing as a singularity. Rather it

is that infinity in nature is not a definitive process like the infinity

of ordinary mathematics. It is an actuality. And, for example, an

infinity of time (without beginning or end) is a singularity of time,

not a progression.

*>There is no such thing; no meaning to the
*

*>anomalous idea that something doesn't exist.
*

I like the idea, but I would put in in the relative way. Everything

exists for the genuine observer who can look at things from

some angle. I would say that there is no meaning to the

anomalous idea that something doesn't absolutely exist, except that

I don't believe in square circle or transcendantal fraction.

Good point. This is what many people say to the argument that there is

no such thing as non-existence.

Please notice that what I am saying, the argument that existence is

inevitable, without beginning or end, and is without opposite, because

non-existence cannot be, also applies to the idea of a square circle.

Separately non and existence have meaning. I can put the two words

together... non + existence and say the word non-existence, but together

the words form a contradiction in terms. No word can represent non-being

because there is no such state. There is no something that does not

exist. There is no meaning for the words to represent.

Similarly, the idea of a square circle also mixes two meanings to form

what has no meaning. There is no meaning to the idea of a square circle.

But it isn't that a square circle does not exist. For that idea, that it

doesn't exist, also has no meaning.

Hopefully you might sense just a bit what happens to one's view of

reality when the idea of non-existence is removed. You might consider

being aware of how often you use the notion and how integrated it is in

your thinking. Doing so certainly has had a profound effect on myself

and its exclusion has allowed me to be very productive in theoretical

cosmology, and some mathematical ideas, even without a good education.

This matter also has much to do with why I think of the universe and

reality as the stuff of knowing or meaning.

David Seaman wrote:

Devin, you are very welcome to make such an interesting interpretation,

but

the three equations were meant to be read from the rather dry point of

view

of information theory.

Do you mean that the statement sum(everything) = 0, means something

different than I interpreted it to mean. I interpreted 'sum' as a

combination of, 'everything' as all that exists, and then I recognized

that the use of zero was not consistent with the axiom or ordinary

meaning of mathematical zero as nothing or no things.

I don't agree with seeing fundamental issues through a complex series of

ideas, (an example being the anthropic principle) over a simple study of

the basic meaning of such words as everything, nothing, or existence.

sum(everything not known by conscious subjects) = 0

means that the parts of information space not observed by conscious

subjects are likely to be equivalent to white noise. Any tests carried

out

by a hypothetical outside observer would show zero information content.

This is because the part of information space available to conscious

subjects is probably of measure zero on the whole of information space.

Again, which 0 do you mean? 0 as nothing; white noise; no information,

or 0 as the combined sum of everything.

I would say that zero is being torn in half as we venture into MWs

theory. We are exacting a great deal of abuse to the concept of zero

these days.

Zero is in my mind is the most fundamental axiom of math, physics,

philosophy, and yet we presently use it, especially in cosmology,

without consistency, in ways that its meaning changes vaguely back and

fourth between a finite count of things and a total measure of the all.

We constantly refer to the infinity of things, worlds, whatever, and no

one is saying that its all unreal, yet the sum total is somehow seen as

void and indefinite, as we default back to zero as nothing.

The intuition that I expect everyone who believes in MWs shares yet

cannot reconcile on a mathematical or non-intuitive level is that

sum(everything) = 0. We do this because of one reason that is I admit

difficult to discuss and resolve. That which is exists. Anything that

exists is part of, and undivided from the whole of existence. There are

no border lands of non-being or non-matter separating worlds. It is all

inevitably one thing, one existence. Only from such a base can we move

forward.

Back to Bruno who responded to:

*>There is no such
*

*>alternative. There is only being. That existence becomes what we think
*

*>of as a mathematical system and all mathematical structures are subsets
*

*>of the one elementary math.
*

Euh ... This is a little too vague.

I assume you mean existence becomes what we think

of as a mathematical system... is vague.

Okay. First simple.

Everything, The Infinite, Universe, all could mean the same thing or

refer to the same base of existence. Each is a different way of saying

the same thing. Note that there is no more fundamental meaning than

existence. Out of that base comes the relative or defined. The most

basic and simple ideas or concepts are something and nothing. Like

positive and negative mathematical values they are relative and

contradictory. All that is defined is synthesized within either

something or nothing. As well, something and nothing are contained

within everything or existence. Again notice the simplicity of meaning.

Consider that there are two versions of binary coding: (0,1) and (0,-1).

Now more complex. I tried to clarify two different ways of describing

the value of 0 in a recent post. There is the 0 = nothing of ordinary

mathematics (or 0 things) and there is a very different system of values

where 0 = sum of everything which for years I have called symmetry math.

Sum(everything) = 0

Positive + Negative = 0 = neutral

Positive whole + Negative whole = 0

Infinity = 0 (Not axiomatically possible or describable in

ordinary mathematics)

New Axiom: 0 = sum of all reality =

0 does not mean nothing or non-existence, absence, vacuum,

or void

0 means indefinite, same as undefined, same as non-polar,

same as neutral

0 means whole, complete, finished, same as singularity

0 means not many but one thing, one whole, oneness

New mathematical axiom: 0 = sum of all other numbers and values

=

0 = Largest value in system

1 = Less than zero

0 = whole infinity

1 = must be smaller than 0 or infinity

1 = ?

1 = Combined sum of all real numbers also except (-1) is

missing

2 = Combined sum of all real numbers except (-2)

(-1) = Combined sum of all real numbers also except (1) is

missing

Sum of all numbers except (-2) = 2

(1,2,3...) all numerics other than zero in system are

infinite values less than 0

Counting up into larger numerics = smaller value

Larger numerics converge in value toward infinitely small

value

Smallest value in system = +oo or -oo (note: relates to

point of infinite density)

Smallest value still is an infinity

+oo = half of whole

Smallest value in system still equals half of whole

+oo or -oo both definite infinite values, not processes, but

numbers

+oo and -oo represent duality, definition, and thingness

+oo and -oo are positive and negative singularities

0 or oo is a neutral singularity (Omega zero)

(+oo) + (-oo) = 0 = oo

This is possibly difficult to accept, but I am proposing that ordinary

math reflects an abstract view of the world as many things, and that it

is secondary to a more primary mathematics. By no means am I suggesting

that the world of things is unreal or an illusion. The defined or

relative world is real but it is not fundamental. Existence is primary

or elementary. Definition and relativity is secondary.

There is a mathematical system which measures definition and there is a

mathematical system derivable from the mathematical value that is

existence i.e. infinity.

I believe the mathematical system of infinities described above is

similar to Cantor's Transfinite math, yet different. I haven't studied

Cantor as much as I would like to, but from what I have read and heard,

Cantor didn't clearly establish an absolute infinity, and am fairly

certain there is no whole spectrum, such as a smallest to largest

cardinal. I don't believe the series of cardinals was ever directly

related to the mathematical plane as an alternate set of axioms.

I said existence as a mathematical system. In Symmetry math the absolute

set or absolute infinity is very clearly defined as zero. The smallest

possible infinities are +oo and -oo, yet each is half of the whole. Each

is a synthesize of all the positive numbers and all the negative numbers

(all other numbers are formed by the combination of positive and

negative values i.e. +1 equals a synthesis of all the positive numbers

and all the negative numbers except (-1)).

I relate this system of values directly to basic meanings and the

physical universe of space-time. I believe +oo and -oo are equivalent to

something and nothing. I believe the point of infinite density

(positive) in our past is +oo, or half of the whole, and that the

universe expands and cools toward absolute zero because of an influx of

negative into that original positive.

You computer gurus should like these elementary infinite numbers, since

the same ideas relate to binary logic 0 (oo) and 1 (+oo), except that

all those bit words are countered by an alternate universe of 0 and -1

(-oo). I would think this would relate to computation theory. Has anyone

considered an inverse set of computations? I am just now reading about

computation theory in Deutsch's Fabric of Reality.

Devin Harris

Received on Mon Jul 19 1999 - 02:02:05 PDT

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:54:09 -0700

Thanks to David Seaman and Bruno Marchel for acknowledging my posts.

Bruno wrote in response to:

This does not necessarily help. You could have said that all

mathematical structure have in common the fact that they ere equal

to themselves. But this does not help to give existence to the

set V = {x : x = x} in naive set theory.

You are making a mathematical structure a thing, so that the thing is

equal to itself. If you notice I write and propose ideas from what may

seem like an alien perspective to others, perhaps without normal

definitive sets. To me, infinity is not a series. Real time, for

example, distinct from measurable clock time, is simply one enormous

moment, without beginning or end.

Above I am saying that all mathematical structures exist undivided from

one another. All are here in the very same space we exist within. It is

a simple truism and for certain no argument can change this inevitable

truth. There is one physical Universe and one mathematical Universe,

un-divided by such things as universes that don't exist or mathematical

structures which don't exist. There is no meaning to the idea of

division between one structure and another, if there is no non-medium or

non-thing to divide them.

And yes, the physical and mathematical Universe are the same. Any TOE

must unify all structures into one whole, and so model the definite not

as a multiplicity of worlds or things; a grande total sum, but rather as

a synthesis of many lesser parts of one grande whole, such as positive +

negative = a neutral whole.

Because we interpret the world to be many things, we think of the

maximum universe as the maximum number of things, rather than a

synthesis of positive and negative and so two sets of infinities.

We cannot bend our ordinary math, based upon the existence of definite

things, toward understanding a Universe of infinities. The axioms do not

allow it, since zero is nothing and numbers count an endless array of

things without completion. Example: the sum total of a positive infinity

(counting up indefinitely) and a negative infinity (counting down

indefinitely) is of course an indefinite sum. As well, to make things

worse, since zero is defined as no definite things, the sum, if we allow

ourselves to imagine a sum, it produces a cancellation, a sum of

nothing, when in fact the whole is a synthesized combination, an

everything, which by nature is not relative to anything but its internal

self (as a friend of mine, Steven Kaufman would say).

Mmmh... My (humble) opinion is that "existence" is relative.

Well, definition is relative, but existence is not relative. All

positive numbers and all negative numbers are relative. But zero is not

relative . You are not alone. Collectively we see and describe only the

defined world of things as real in physics and math.

Existence appears indefinite because it doesn't have an opposite. This

is the precise reason everyone believes existence is relative, because

we think the world is made of things and that whatever is without

definition is not existent. Still, the laws of physics break down at a

singularity, where there is no longer a distinction between time and

space. It isn't that there is no such thing as a singularity. Rather it

is that infinity in nature is not a definitive process like the infinity

of ordinary mathematics. It is an actuality. And, for example, an

infinity of time (without beginning or end) is a singularity of time,

not a progression.

I like the idea, but I would put in in the relative way. Everything

exists for the genuine observer who can look at things from

some angle. I would say that there is no meaning to the

anomalous idea that something doesn't absolutely exist, except that

I don't believe in square circle or transcendantal fraction.

Good point. This is what many people say to the argument that there is

no such thing as non-existence.

Please notice that what I am saying, the argument that existence is

inevitable, without beginning or end, and is without opposite, because

non-existence cannot be, also applies to the idea of a square circle.

Separately non and existence have meaning. I can put the two words

together... non + existence and say the word non-existence, but together

the words form a contradiction in terms. No word can represent non-being

because there is no such state. There is no something that does not

exist. There is no meaning for the words to represent.

Similarly, the idea of a square circle also mixes two meanings to form

what has no meaning. There is no meaning to the idea of a square circle.

But it isn't that a square circle does not exist. For that idea, that it

doesn't exist, also has no meaning.

Hopefully you might sense just a bit what happens to one's view of

reality when the idea of non-existence is removed. You might consider

being aware of how often you use the notion and how integrated it is in

your thinking. Doing so certainly has had a profound effect on myself

and its exclusion has allowed me to be very productive in theoretical

cosmology, and some mathematical ideas, even without a good education.

This matter also has much to do with why I think of the universe and

reality as the stuff of knowing or meaning.

David Seaman wrote:

Devin, you are very welcome to make such an interesting interpretation,

but

the three equations were meant to be read from the rather dry point of

view

of information theory.

Do you mean that the statement sum(everything) = 0, means something

different than I interpreted it to mean. I interpreted 'sum' as a

combination of, 'everything' as all that exists, and then I recognized

that the use of zero was not consistent with the axiom or ordinary

meaning of mathematical zero as nothing or no things.

I don't agree with seeing fundamental issues through a complex series of

ideas, (an example being the anthropic principle) over a simple study of

the basic meaning of such words as everything, nothing, or existence.

sum(everything not known by conscious subjects) = 0

means that the parts of information space not observed by conscious

subjects are likely to be equivalent to white noise. Any tests carried

out

by a hypothetical outside observer would show zero information content.

This is because the part of information space available to conscious

subjects is probably of measure zero on the whole of information space.

Again, which 0 do you mean? 0 as nothing; white noise; no information,

or 0 as the combined sum of everything.

I would say that zero is being torn in half as we venture into MWs

theory. We are exacting a great deal of abuse to the concept of zero

these days.

Zero is in my mind is the most fundamental axiom of math, physics,

philosophy, and yet we presently use it, especially in cosmology,

without consistency, in ways that its meaning changes vaguely back and

fourth between a finite count of things and a total measure of the all.

We constantly refer to the infinity of things, worlds, whatever, and no

one is saying that its all unreal, yet the sum total is somehow seen as

void and indefinite, as we default back to zero as nothing.

The intuition that I expect everyone who believes in MWs shares yet

cannot reconcile on a mathematical or non-intuitive level is that

sum(everything) = 0. We do this because of one reason that is I admit

difficult to discuss and resolve. That which is exists. Anything that

exists is part of, and undivided from the whole of existence. There are

no border lands of non-being or non-matter separating worlds. It is all

inevitably one thing, one existence. Only from such a base can we move

forward.

Back to Bruno who responded to:

Euh ... This is a little too vague.

I assume you mean existence becomes what we think

of as a mathematical system... is vague.

Okay. First simple.

Everything, The Infinite, Universe, all could mean the same thing or

refer to the same base of existence. Each is a different way of saying

the same thing. Note that there is no more fundamental meaning than

existence. Out of that base comes the relative or defined. The most

basic and simple ideas or concepts are something and nothing. Like

positive and negative mathematical values they are relative and

contradictory. All that is defined is synthesized within either

something or nothing. As well, something and nothing are contained

within everything or existence. Again notice the simplicity of meaning.

Consider that there are two versions of binary coding: (0,1) and (0,-1).

Now more complex. I tried to clarify two different ways of describing

the value of 0 in a recent post. There is the 0 = nothing of ordinary

mathematics (or 0 things) and there is a very different system of values

where 0 = sum of everything which for years I have called symmetry math.

Sum(everything) = 0

Positive + Negative = 0 = neutral

Positive whole + Negative whole = 0

Infinity = 0 (Not axiomatically possible or describable in

ordinary mathematics)

New Axiom: 0 = sum of all reality =

0 does not mean nothing or non-existence, absence, vacuum,

or void

0 means indefinite, same as undefined, same as non-polar,

same as neutral

0 means whole, complete, finished, same as singularity

0 means not many but one thing, one whole, oneness

New mathematical axiom: 0 = sum of all other numbers and values

=

0 = Largest value in system

1 = Less than zero

0 = whole infinity

1 = must be smaller than 0 or infinity

1 = ?

1 = Combined sum of all real numbers also except (-1) is

missing

2 = Combined sum of all real numbers except (-2)

(-1) = Combined sum of all real numbers also except (1) is

missing

Sum of all numbers except (-2) = 2

(1,2,3...) all numerics other than zero in system are

infinite values less than 0

Counting up into larger numerics = smaller value

Larger numerics converge in value toward infinitely small

value

Smallest value in system = +oo or -oo (note: relates to

point of infinite density)

Smallest value still is an infinity

+oo = half of whole

Smallest value in system still equals half of whole

+oo or -oo both definite infinite values, not processes, but

numbers

+oo and -oo represent duality, definition, and thingness

+oo and -oo are positive and negative singularities

0 or oo is a neutral singularity (Omega zero)

(+oo) + (-oo) = 0 = oo

This is possibly difficult to accept, but I am proposing that ordinary

math reflects an abstract view of the world as many things, and that it

is secondary to a more primary mathematics. By no means am I suggesting

that the world of things is unreal or an illusion. The defined or

relative world is real but it is not fundamental. Existence is primary

or elementary. Definition and relativity is secondary.

There is a mathematical system which measures definition and there is a

mathematical system derivable from the mathematical value that is

existence i.e. infinity.

I believe the mathematical system of infinities described above is

similar to Cantor's Transfinite math, yet different. I haven't studied

Cantor as much as I would like to, but from what I have read and heard,

Cantor didn't clearly establish an absolute infinity, and am fairly

certain there is no whole spectrum, such as a smallest to largest

cardinal. I don't believe the series of cardinals was ever directly

related to the mathematical plane as an alternate set of axioms.

I said existence as a mathematical system. In Symmetry math the absolute

set or absolute infinity is very clearly defined as zero. The smallest

possible infinities are +oo and -oo, yet each is half of the whole. Each

is a synthesize of all the positive numbers and all the negative numbers

(all other numbers are formed by the combination of positive and

negative values i.e. +1 equals a synthesis of all the positive numbers

and all the negative numbers except (-1)).

I relate this system of values directly to basic meanings and the

physical universe of space-time. I believe +oo and -oo are equivalent to

something and nothing. I believe the point of infinite density

(positive) in our past is +oo, or half of the whole, and that the

universe expands and cools toward absolute zero because of an influx of

negative into that original positive.

You computer gurus should like these elementary infinite numbers, since

the same ideas relate to binary logic 0 (oo) and 1 (+oo), except that

all those bit words are countered by an alternate universe of 0 and -1

(-oo). I would think this would relate to computation theory. Has anyone

considered an inverse set of computations? I am just now reading about

computation theory in Deutsch's Fabric of Reality.

Devin Harris

Received on Mon Jul 19 1999 - 02:02:05 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*