Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

From: Brian Tenneson <>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 07:28:34 -0700

At the very least, I could register and start wiki-ing -my- posts here
before they get anywhere near massive in number, right? OR is it frozen? I
think I'm confused on that point.

I'd like to have a hyperlinked version of the explanation of Bruno's
argument against the CRH. I think the "physical universe" -might- be (or
is) computable but I think the "entire" universe, at least in algebraic
physics, can -not possibly- be computable except perhaps by a computer of a
sort not known in mathematics to me as of yet. Even with hyperlinks, it
would take me a while to digest Bruno's arguments and everyone's
counterarguments. This should be something I should examine in the
"algebraic physics" theory.

Well, I've been working on my "algebraic physics" theory some more, not to
be confused with prior notions or other notions of algebraic physics. I
really don't know what to call this multi-mathematical-disciplinary

And I've been focusing on dimensions. I see, from my point of view, that I
am creating the paradigm that I live in but the last thing I want to do is
trap anyone into someone else's paradigm. I will try to type up what I have
so far about my set of dimensions which seems to have a vector space
structure with a natural operator I call the "transition operator," to be
broadcast when I am done proving my dimension set is a vector space, if it

The set of dimensions is Q* in the theory of algebraic physics with only
some of these being "special" in the sense that they are relevant to
conjecture 1 of my paper, which is that the multiverse studied in physics is
isomorphic to the "universe generated by Q*," with more precision in the
type-up posted in version 00-02-00 above.

There are concrete dimensions, the positive integers, the transition
dimensions, which end up being more natural if they are the positive
integers greater than 1 (including 4 and higher for transition on the first
three dimensions--to be compatible with Einstein's paradigm), and other
The microscopic dimensions are those positive infinitesimal elements of Q*
The macroscopic dimensions are those positive unlimited elements of Q*
The abstract dimensions are those not given in any other scheme, the
complement of the union of every other "natural" class of dimension, with
respect to Q* (the complement is with respect to Q*).

Now if |D is the set of all subsets of Q*, this is the main carrier for my
thought-to-be vector space, the set of all concrete and abstract
dimensions. (I prefer that nonmenclature to something like "real and

The addition of two elements of |D, call them D_1 and D_2, is defined to be
the set of all sums of elements of D_1 and D_2.

The set of scalars is Q* and note that Q* is a field. Scalar multiplication
kD, where k is in Q* and D is in |D is defined thusly:
kD := D + k, by which, I mean { d+k : d is in D}.

The zero element of the (proposed) vector space is {0} which is an element
of |D. Denote this with a capital O. (In my write-up, to be posted later,
this is blackboard capital O.)

I hope V := < |D, F, +, ., O > is a vector space. I am attempting to find
it's basis; I think it is simply {0,1}, which would make V a two-dimensional
vector space over F. If that is the case, all the tools of finite
dimensional linear algebra would then be at my disposal for analyzing my set
of dimensions, with the concrete dimensions being of most interest to

Ah, so the transition operator is defined so that it maps |D to itself and
for all D in |D, ie for all subsets D of Q*,
T(D) := D + 1 := {d + 1 : d is in D}. This is nothing more than translation
along the hyper-rational axis.

In this event, and if D_c is the set of concrete dimensions and D_t is the
set of transition dimensions, then
T(D_c) = D_t, which is why I call T the transition operator.

I am observing that I used the word event instead of definition. But maybe
interesting blurt there if I can grasp what I meant by event. Is defining
something an event in the theory of paradigm creation?
  I would think so....

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun May 04 2008 - 10:28:48 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST