Stream of Consciousness Rant on Numbers, Mathematics, Geometry, Alien Intelligence, Quixotic Phenomena, Logic, Jiggery Pokery & The Unexamined Problem of ‘Thinking’— Which is an Illusion, just like Morality, Ghosts, Good Fairies, Infinity & The Fundimental Idea of Proofs.
Are There Numbers ?
There is this idea that numbers don’t really exist, anymore than unicorns really exist. numbers & unicorns only exist as ideas that people have thought up, & without people, or The records that we’ve left behind, numbers & unicorns would cease to exist from The universe.
There is another school of thought that suggests that numbers really do exist, in The same way that The color Red Exist. Even if there were no people to see The color Red, it would continue to exist as a well defined frequency range in The ElectroMagnetic Spectrum.
But what if we were to define another frequency range as The color Lyts.
Lyts An Hypothetical ‘Color’ that people can’t see, & exists only as a color in The sense that we’ve defined other colors in this same way. Given that no one has ever seen The color Lyts, what does it mean to say that this ‘color’ exists?
Given this ‘Approach’; Might it be reasonable to assert that numbers exist only as tools for The functionality that we give them, in The same way that we can ‘see’ colors, & without this ability for The color to be ‘Seen’ or a number to be Quantified, Then it wouldn’t exist, except within that context.
Without People; Quantities would continue to exist, but numbers wouldn’t.
An Apple, for example would exist as possessing a quantity of appleness, but it would be senseless to think of it as ‘One’ Apple. This Constraint is a purely human contrivance.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
What allows Mathematicians & Physicists so Much Hubris when using Math to Describe Reality, Is that for most Applications, Pretty Close is Plenty Close Enough.
It doesn't really matter if a Space Probe is only Pretty Close to Where they Want it, It will still return some pretty pictures.
If a Ray-Tracing CGI Image is Only Taken to 4 Levels of Shadowy Reflections, Most Lay Persons will Insist that The Resulting Image is Photographically Perfect.
What is Very Curious about this Last Example is that As Artistic Stylizations Change, So Do The Damp Masses Ability to Perceive The Realness of These Images...! ( ? ) That is; What was Considered Perfect CGI Images 5 years ago, are Now Considered Charmingly Hokey at Best.
It's Extremely Fascinating that Not So Long Ago, People Thought That The Grainy Black & White Images of Early Cinematography were Indistinguishable from Reality...!!!
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
i also hate the way much of Quantum Mechanics is interpreted. Especially The Cat in the box, and H- Uncertainty principle. Both are commonly interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what they were meant to mean. The Cat in the box was not meant to suggest a necessity of multiple universe, it was meant to suggest that those ways that suggested multiple universe was clearly stupid...! / The uncertainly principle merely means that whenever you examine anything, you disturb it in some way, and when the thing you're examining is so small that the thing you're using to examine it, is the same size, you're going to disturb it a Lot. If you can figure out how to examine something with substantially feebler units than the thing you want to look at, then this effect disappears.
i predict that within 50 years, all of what is now thought of physics, with a tiny core understanding remaining, will be brushed aside.
People in the near future will have abandoned quantum theory, and think of Einstein in the same way that psychologists now regard Freud.
•.·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.• .·:·.•
It is my ‘hypothesis’ that mathematics & reality are two very different things, and while mathematics may, and has been used successfully to quantify, label, describe and predict physical systems for some time; all of these examples are very simple ones, and The moment that any mathematical model exceeds a very simple threshold, The predictive power of mathematical simulations breaks down. This is most clearly demonstrated with The so-called ‘Three body problem’ in which three bodies in space are ‘falling’ gravitationally around one another, it is essentially ‘impossible’ to accurately predict where they will be at any set time (x in The future. Obviously; Astronomers and Astrophysicists will vehemently disagree with this and insist that they can launch space craft and get them to far off planets & moons with a very degree of precision. But of course; they neglect to mention that these flights include numerous ‘course corrections’ and still, they are only ‘highly’ accurate. It has been demonstrated with Computer simulations for example that simply changing The precision of The fractional values ( e.g.; 2.38 to 2.38928 ) will radically change The final results. Not that one will be a better prediction, but that one will be completely different from The other. And this holds true for several values with one digit increments. The results will not be slightly better in each case, each will yield a completely different solution. And this is demonstrated most clearly with The increasing number of itinerations.
The point being; What i am saying is that mathematics has -no- correspondence with physical reality. None.
Even in The simplest cases; Such as 1 + 1 = 2, may not be accurately ( truly ) used to model reality. One may argue that we can simply take one apple and another apple and put them into a basket which then contains two apples.
My counterargument would be that each ‘apple’ is actually a entity which contains a ‘vague’ amount of appleness. So that you are actually combining one entity of appleness to a second entity of appleness and The basket now contains a greater quantity of appleness than either of The two apple entities alone.
Of course; That’s not The way we think of apples, but everyone should readily agree that without exception, Any two apples are different, and once you accept that idea of ‘appleness’, each ‘apple’ contains a unique amount of ‘appleness’.
One might argue at this point that i am simply moving The goal posts and that if we were to instead use mathematics to exactly quantify The amount of appleness in each apple, we could exactly define how much appleness each apple consisted of, and thus; know with complete certainty how much appleness The basket contains.
My counter-counter argument to this would be that The ‘idea’ of appleness is ‘undefined’ and is used only to express The uncertainty of appleness. In fact; This argument is merely a prelude to The greater argument that it is ‘inaccurate’ to think of apples as having a quantity of appleness at all. i mean; An actual apple no doubt contains foreign matter and there are different kinds of apples, each one, has a unique chemical signature and so on. And on another level, When does The apple start and stop. We might easily imagine The apple being limited by The Skin covering it, but we can smell apples when they are in The vicinity of our noses, so that one might very convincingly argue that The Apples extend considerably beyound their skins.
And if one were to argue towards The conclusion that there existed A Unit Measurement of Appleness; How might this be quantified? There is certainly no Electron which is unique to Apples, nor is there even an Apple Atom. There are Distinct Molecules which are unique to Apples, but i heard just recently that Humans share 50% ( ± ) our DNA with Bananas. And how many of these molecules unique to apples must we inclusively combine to state that this is An Elemental Apple Unit?
Scientists may argue such points with The same enthusiasm that theologians argue as to how many angels can dance on The head of a pin ( 23 ), But this entirely misses The point.
Which is; Reality is an Holistic Totality.
Mathematics is a digital construct. Mathematics is not something that The humanimal mind discovered. It was something that we created.
When; Someday, we find aliens on other worlds, we will no doubt discover that their systems of ‘counting things’ are very unique and in most cases, completely incomprehensible to us.
Various Arguments that Confront The Absurdity of The Idea : Infinity
- - | There is another positing that suggests that .999- = 1.
- - | Or that A Circle with a Radius of Infinity has a Delimiting Edge that is Perpendicular to A Line at Zero Degrees ( Directly to The Right of The Center )
- - | Or that Parallel Lines meet at Infinity
- - | Or that a Subset of any Line which contains an Infinite Number of Points, Itself contains an Infinite Number of Points.
These point out that The Way we think about Reality in Quantifiable Values, is just Wrong.
The Word ‘Infinity’ is one of those Letter Collections that don’t mean anything. There’s No Genuine Application of where & how it can be used. Even in The Most Speculative Arguments or Stories that feature every spectral Pooka, Absurd Technological Widget, Incomprehensible Alien Arts Program, Clever Tax Evasion or Advertising Swindle protected by Constitutional Edicts.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
The AlphaBetric Tables for Multiplication & Addition
The Curious Thing About The AlphaBetric Base;
Which is InArguably; A Base 26 Counting System.
Thinking about it this way; The Base Ten System that Humans have universally adopted;
Is really only a Base 9 System!
Using The AlphaBetric Method with The Decimal Counting Digits, You'd have:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
And then what...?
it would be; 11
But what would 11 mean?
It would be 1 Unit of 9's + 1 Unit of 1's. = 10_d
In The AlphaBetric Counting System,
which does NOT use A Zero as a place holder...
Which; By the Way, i can recall being taught was ABSOLUTELY Necessary to Create a Logical & Consistent Counting System that would extend beyound your fingers & toes... ( ? )
...Allows that after X Y Z...
The Next Number is AA,
Which makes perfect sense as A ( or 1_d ) unit of 26_d's + 1 unit of 1's = 27_d
It has been suggested that The AlphaBetric System DOES in fact include A Zero, which must be Necessary to Represent The Absence of One. ( or n - n ).
The Quantity of Nothing in The Alphabetric System is Represented by The Null Quanta, which uses a Symbol that is not available on this keyboard.
Curiously; Algebraically; The AlphaBetrical Aliens use '0' to Represent The Totality of Everything, or Infinity.
They also don't recognize our idea of Irrational Numbers.
All the numbers that we think of as Irrational have a distinct and unambiguous place on the number line, and they don't think of them as any different than integers.
Also: The don't use The i.f system.
To represent numbers smaller than A ( 1 ) with Geometrical Graphics that are designed to represent All Quantities, Even those that we consider 'Irrational' and by means of this system, Those quanities are precisely defined & completely unambiguous or incomplete.
They are also a little fuzzy when it comes to Integers.
Although their AlphaBetric System uses Integer Digits,
They don't apply this idea of 'Real' Numbers to Things in The Real World.
If we had a Basket with 6 Apples, We would say that there are Exactly 6 Applies in The Basket.
But AlphaBetricians would say that there is a -Specified- Quantity of Appleness in The Basket, Based on A Universal Measurement of What A Unit of Appleness is.
This Integer Unit of Appleness would never really ( Really ) be applied to Any Apples in The Real World.
It is a purely hypothetical Quantity.
They also Think of What we Call Negative Numbers Differently.
They allow for A Quantity of Debt, But don't measure Temperatures in The Negative, or Think of A Car going Backwards as going -40 miles an hour.
They Also Refute the Idea that humans have of Multiplying by A Negative Amount.
Such as -3 x 3 = -9
( Converting AlphaBetrics to Decimals for Clarity )
They Allow that you Can Mulitple 3 x -3 = -9 though.
But -3 x -3 doesn't make any sense to them at all.
All Arithmatic Functions in The Positive are Exactly Mirrored on The Other Side of The Number Line.