I question the big mathematical theories, let's go

Hello everybody

After a nice start of a new approach, already an...

... start intermezzo

We write in SR en GR just time as a fourth dimension only time is then like a distance. We are invited to jump in time, like over a ditch, and to go backward in time. But how do we do that in reality?

For my experience time is totally not distance-like.

I think also time builds up from local to the universe connected to matter. The fluent time we use is man made, I think.

Time is locally made in the SM as well.

According to Strauss Edinburgh we could see time as many parallel threads and in each happening one of them goes further. Only I don't understand how that could begin, or what are predecessor situations. Something that starts with much. Most things start reversely.

So time in SR and GR is already strange.

...End intermezzo

Isn't it a joy? See my posting only as a play. Pure mathematicians learn that with proof theory. Then the realty is a model. That model has a language which describes what is happening there. We look at than model and talk about in a meta-language and a we use for it a meta-theory. We can formalize them as well. In proof theory the famous Gödel has proved. Mathematical theories have always holes. But they are internally of course consistent. Proof are only consistency proof.

For proof theory the model is the reality. But for physicians that is confusing. I know that.

In mathematics we have the choice axiom. You can prove then that you can divide the solid unit sphere into a final number of parts. You can rearrange the parts and build now two solid unit spheres. Please try that in physics. But mathematician often say this strangeness of 1 = 2 is only an interpretation problem. No they don't want to lose that so productive axiom of choice. The use that axiom very much. On the net you can google for it.

The whole mathematics is also a theory and so proofs are also a tautology. The axioms contain all the results already. And we can't escape them.

But in CS you have already a := a + 1. While an axiom in math is a = a. I know := means another thing.

But you can see the timelessness of our math box and that there is more in this word than that. Even CS exists.

Math is a giant tool but there is more.

Love is not mathematical. Feelings hardly.

The physical chaos view of layers and physical emergence is with local gain and loss.

In our brain are also different often dynamical layers. Thoughts can break through and build up. And emerging to a higher layer is there more coherence and some parts stay where they are and don't have results. That are what we call losses.

And with many layers, the top layer has only loose connection with the rest. It's more a general picture without many details. They are lost and so... I experience I have a free will and I understand with those layers and local loss I have a free will. I see that only as great.

We can think about it inductively like happens in all sciences. That's gathering ideas. And that direction is opposite to the deductive direction. This isn't really difficult to understand.

All sciences are outside the math box in an inductive world. Normal people think in this way. In the beginning we know nothing or a little, we gather and later we know more and also more precise.

The information annalist goes also from imprecise to precise in steps.

But I as mathematician I know exactly my axioms and I build in the opposite direction and look we meet here. Isn't that great.

Ed van der Meulen

Some light critics to the SM. as a very light start.

Is it a pity the neutrino has a mass. What is mass more than a variable and a number in our theories. Is it also a physical something?

But what is a photon? It has a rest mass of 0, so only moving and spin energy. We can catch light between borders, but the photon doesn't halt. When it would halt it would have no mass and what is it then. Isn't this a very little bit strange.

We start mildly. The big issues will come later.

Time was a problem as well. So we have already a small list.

Everyone is free to react but please stay friendly and possitive.

Do you know of the ARIA-pattern. It's from mass communications, yes another subject.

A = amazement. R = resistence, I = imitation and A = authenticy.

Maybe all people pass through these phases when they hear new things. I as well. The R phase can last long, but I have always a short R phase. Imitation means I will use already parts. and A is also acceptation, choosing it and wanting it. For me it's a look at myself. What is happening with me.

You can also check the things I am telling here. I can give you urls about it. I apply in fact open information. I am not an inventer but a combiner.

Have please a very good day

Ed van der Meulen

Hello bright thinkers.

The play goes on, a little step this time.

Something about inductive and deductive thinking. In short, deductive states axioms and they are fixed and then people develop a theory. The theory is bound to the early chosen axioms.

In Mathematics you have the Ituitionism, a more physical form of mathematics. It misses the "Tertium non datur". This means when of two ways one is closed, the other must be open. There's no thirds possibility. Binary logic, but you have also Fuzzy logic.

But in physics that's not guaranteed. Both ways can be closed. Or tomorrow one is open. Tell that in formal logic and you have problems. You have no time in that logic. The axiom a = a is very strong. Nothing can change. Is that physics?

Intuitionism means also infinity we can't reach. It means do everything recurrent. So yes very deductive as well.

It's not like the inductive sciences working with the scientific method. Of finding new insights --> hypothesis --> many measurements--> and then falsify the hypothesis --> On our way to improvements.

I know I can learn a lot from other sciences, they are great. And other people can learn for me, a mathematician. Don't I give much information now already? I have another initiative to join all scientists. Also in a pure open way.

The following url is about inductive and deductive thinking.

[url] nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-math [/url]

When something isn't clear, please ask me.

This is a url about those two ways of reasoning. Inductive goes from unknown to each time more knowledge. Normal sciences work in that way. Of course the processes go always forward. I talk about our way of reasoning.

Do you know the inductive game of Eleusis? That's inductive reasoning as well. Have hints, find the rules. So the rules (axioms) are arriving late then. And that's very natural, I think.

Slowly we enter this for many people new realm. While other people live there. Are we isolated? Could that be true?

The physical chaos view is known by already a lot of people. That is true. I have given a title of a book. I can give you a lot of urls as well. But all in a proper time. We aren't in a hurry. And look all info is open as well. It's an open source project under the rules of GPL. Use it, extend it, but let the stories like they are. So they can only grow.

For me that is a great way.

An extra gift. A weak critical note. The posting must have some contents, ne? (short for isn't it).

Some extra. In reality we have only a three dim space. Time isn't distance-like. Mass neither. Where in space do you find a 5 dim Space. It's it in our heads. And we can't be sure that a 5 dim space is right. I have never seen it.

Do you know the saying. Reality tends to disagree?

Ed

Is this fresh approach needed?

There are more discussion sites. With also people with different opinions about the same things, SM, MM, redshift. Higg's field, sometimes time, clocks, SR, GR, ST, and most are just fighting with each other. That is lost energy. We have to work together.

I bring you the very true layer view on reality. It has a rich history. And science is nowhere when she sticks her head in the sand, going on in her own way.

That means layers we have to introduce. That means - not the past of particle is important but the local escape to a lower energy state. The particle has to be in a good enough position. Good enough will be a notion. We will meet margins everywhere. Ever seen a measurement without margins. All is shifting.

We don't know what a field is it's now only a formula that works. No more than that.

We know the higher layers are built by physical emergence. that is with real local loss and local gain.

We know as well streams come together which we don't know precise so we can't predict what will happen. We call that contingent. This means we do a step back. Our models give now ideas. Can you look there. And that is far more important then telling a whole story based on only the past, while life is full of surprises.

We have the far galaxies. We never can walk to the stars. We have to deal with that extra thing huge distances.

Time is important but we don't know what it is. Mass we neither know. We really have to start anew. We can't always fight with each other.

I hope some will see I am right in this. When something isn't clear please ask me. There's already a lot of information available.

And it grows.

Ed van der Meulen

Summing up everything you have posted can be done in a few words. The universe is made of particles and fields that no body knows much about. Now, isn't that better than all the verbage?

How is this, the numerator is 1 and always 1. Everything that exist is some fraction of this 1. So inductively, I start outside the toolbox figure out how to open it and use what is on the inside. Once I get inside I have to use the tools availible that make this seemingly chaotic Universe represented by the denominator, add up to one. I think my model does a good job of that.