1x0

The first readable resource. Thanks Strange

Ok I think this part I get I think what confuses me why he uses the speed of light squared. What is the determination based on?

This is Strange(ly) blur.

This I understand. What c2 exactly refers to in the equation? As far as I am able to sense, it says Energy = Mass in SpaceTime I know it is crazy....and I also think that while space can be volume, time can be just information. Still physical....

Isn't it the speed of light squared? I recognize that in a moment of observation we have volume rather than velocity. I know. Just let it go.

Mass is a form of energy = Energy is a form of mass Substance: Matter, anything that has mass and takes up space Feels like we speak about two different states of the same thing....

Yes. We have the freedom of the mind. Determine please what you mean by Nothing? 1 This basically says matter is transformed energy. What transformed energy? Space and Time Thought experiment: Could the initial velocity of empty space-time be c2 at the beginning and why would the limitation apply(i.e why it is not infinite)? Energy, mass, and matter appear

I think you should see the title of the topic in speculations and recognize why he has been placing the question at first hand. I hope your profound answers on the raised topic will really help him to trust from now on, the clarity of mathematics.

Where the original apple we operated disappeared to?

Koti, you could define what 0 means in a mathematical result. Please on a way that me and my other 7 billion undereducated fellow earthlings with limited mental capabilities understand that too. (i.e you connect your explanation to the physical reality) Multiplication is basically repeated addition.

Since this thread is already derailed by you into the realm of nonsense, why don’t you give us a mathematical proof of what you state in your paper: 1*0=1. I have an apple. I multiply it with nothing (i.e i did not add anything to it) I still have an apple.

don't derail the thread Strange. Do not be a bully. Respect the different pace and methods of learning and different interests of the individuals.

I know. That is why I say it is not nothing. They have connections to reality and most of the axiomatizations are true but some fundamental determination for some reason seems to be blur which from my perspective causing confusion.

I play with the idea and raise questions I recognize from this anomaly that there is some problem with our calculus. I learn like this.

I think I work on the most simple math in the know universe. 0 1 I always have a reference point to compare information to and I have to say it works awsome in the praxis because I understand my patients problems from any perspective while you can not clearly enough describe a simple mathematical axiomatisation supported with a physical example which I can not confute. So I am pretty fine wondering around about value recognition and try to understand how scientists recognize different values. I have the right to chat around, I learn(ed) the rules, it is a forum and I do not force anyone on anything, I ask questions and I make few suggestions which you can deny reasonably. I am all good with that. I am here to learn which is one purpose of life after all.

I kind of agree with you. I have raised your questions myself seeking to find clear mathematical reference points to be able to determine physically recognizable values as human performance, knowledge, medically relevant information, space, time, energy, matter... I am sure you understand more than nothing. The question is do you understand what nothing is? So here is my Strategic Value Recognition paper I wrote to my Strategy exam at a Business School, which became quite personal at the end but I think it shows well what is the problem with the mathematical value recognition from a Nature lover, reality worshipper veterinarians point of view. KDoMS.StrategicValueRecognition..docx

There cannot be something outside physics....i.e everything has some kind of physical attribute... Infinity seems to be a potential rather then reality.... Interestingly this potential seems to be real and so part of reality even it is nothing more than information about its Nature.

That journey would have a starting point when I first saw the sign on the screen and start my rounds from a single point on the path, so I could measure the time since when I am going around and so the exact length of my journey around the symbol. This makes that I can potentially* circulate infinitely long but with an exact point of space and time at any observation (if anyone would be interested since when I am circulating and how far I have reached). The potential to going around infinitely would not make the journey itself infinite. *possible but not yet happened.

Ok. It seems to me quite limited in space-time to my computer screen

Yes I did, and I gave a thought experiment on it. It is an informational theory created by us. What is the physical evidence for infinity and why the thought experiment is not acceptable? Because if it has a starting point there is a physical reference point since universe could evolve. In the physical reality, there is physical limitation to infinite evolution (e.g. photons does not have infinite velocity, no infinite amount of energy or matter, no infinitely manipulatable time, no signs of absolute infinite intelligences etc ...) I understand the previous answer, I responded with a thought experiment. You are right it is tedious, and I can not force you to recognize the thought experiments, so it is better if we just leave this question to rest a bit until I gain more insight and I can give better questions or better examples to think about. How can be that if infinity is a nature of our universe, it is NOT applied everywhere and on everything and so appear finite? It is paradoxical for me (maybe the limitations of my brain) so I would be very happy for anything more than a number theory created by our subjective axiomatization. Thoughts on this? Thank You! I really appreciate it. This is clear but does not imply infinity. From the observed part, we should be able to make the conclusion to the nature of the unobservable portions as well, because infinity(or finite) should be universal if it is true so should be applied and observable in the known universe as well be true in the unobservable.

The shape of the universe should be spherical on an overall view (spacetime itself) as it will identically expand in every direction since it is guided by the laws of nature, which are applied in the overall universe, providing the same physical setup. The energy and matter present in it could be spherical, flat or a torus on the overall view depending on the general impact of mass on the visible physical reality.

How you prove this infinite numbers of intergers? If we give the task to our first advanced AI that s/he can use any energy and matter to count the integers possible, there would not be enough energy and matter in a finite universe to execute this task. Could the AI continue her task if we know that the universe although is finite, it is bigger and more with every upcoming second (evolving) so there will be always new energy and matter usable to do the task? It could count forever although with the limitations what the accessible energy and matter probably would cause, which would reduce the speed of the counting but could run forever. Very good. How could an infinite physical entity act as finite at some part and as infinite everywhere else where we it cannot be observed? How can everything seem to be finite and the only things that can be infinite is the theoretical recognition of mathematicians and physicians trying to digitalize the Universe? So how could it be finite then? How, when there are no physical signs of infinity? A second cannot last forever.

How can some part of the same realm be infinite and some part of it finite? If infinity would be a physical possibility should not we observe its nature all over the universe as it should be determined by the fundamental physical laws and applied everywhere? Where did I say this? My expression of Nothing above mentioned was not clear enough I am sorry. Nothing: A space, time, energy, matter, information-free state at the beginning of the universe. The lowest possible physical state. (speculative conclusion based on Hubble's recognition that space expands)

Because it would be an information about the system we observe and so it seems to be relevant to determine its nature. Without this recognition, the system seems infinite which can be just my perception. I have no intention to waste your time. As it feels like a waste of time it is better than I just stop this line. Thank you Strange for your participation and thoughts.

the perception is relative to the result of the measurements, which ones do not seem to be detailed enough, that we could make such a conclusion that the universe is finite or infinite.