danny burton

Had to lol. How is maths any use at all in providing evidence in physics, unless their mutual consistency is absolute? If you are not ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that maths has an ABSOLUTE consistency with physics, you cannot rely on math as proof or evidence of ANYTHING in physics. It's impossible to be so certain they will match up so exactly if you belive maths/number theory is only a human invention. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to match up so precisely without being intimately, and fundamentally connected. But if the mutual consistency IS absolute.... where does that leave the mainstream's refusal to accept the fundamental connections?

The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it. The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent. There can only be, by definition, one sum total of existence. And at that scale, the only value we can ascribe to the sum total of existence is that it = 1. If then everything within the sum total of existence is composed of parts of that sum total, it's not illogical to suggest that whatever exists within the universe is 'made' of nothing more complex than fractions of the whole, self-organising at every scale from the astromnomical to the quantum - according to the laws of number theory. Our human number system is only a system of classification - representative of the natural ordering of the universe into integer parts. We have names for the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, so we have names for the different parts of the numerical spectrum. As the theory of gravity is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe, so number theory is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe. We don't pretend we invented gravity, simply because we worked out some of the 'rules' by which it operates, why then do we insist that we invented numericality and mathematicality? Particularly when it is so self-evident that for humans to have evolved, the universe HAD to have both those characteristics already. But what really blows my mind isn't the amazing possibilities this has for science. No. What blows my mind is that these connections are so clear, and they so clearly make scientists uncomfortable - so uncomfortable they refuse to look any closer and when pressed begin to mumble excuses about anthropocentricity they never put forward when investigating gravity, or quantum mechanics - both of which we're only able to investigate because our existence is predicated on theirs, in exactly the same way. Surely, surely if ANYONE should be refusing to look away from what makes them uncomfortable, it is the scientific community? Any true scientist, when they came across a natural phenomena that weirded them out so badly as this, would surely LOOK MORE CLOSELY?! Come on people. Sort yourselves out! Solve the mystery! Bloody hell, whatever else the connections are - they're nothing if not seriously strange, and seriously cool. Let's call it 'teh big bang theory' - like the big bang theory, but you need some humour to get it.

ahem PWNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29

in terms of how you'd pay for something that cost 7 pence, yes a 5pence would be a quanta wouldn't it if they abolished 1p and 2p pieces. but you'd have to buy 5 of the things before you got your money's worth. i can't be bothered explaining the basics. argue amongst yourslef if you want.

how can 1 quanta express 1000/999? 1 quanta = 1 definitively. if 1 quanta < 1 then it isn't 1 quanta, it's 1 quanta plus more quanta. how do you represent 2 using 1 node? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand a googolplex (lmao) can be counted to for sure, but only in a googolplex worth of quanta.

a googleplex IS infinity if you cannot count to it. and where do you get the 1000 quanta to divide? there are only 999 quanta in this thought experiment. and could we please keep this polite? especially when you're the one trying to split quanta. quanta you don't even have.

re: insane alien addition in quanta of 1000/999 rly? a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself. infinity retains its absolute value (ie unknowable). infinity being defined as the number you can't count to at whatever time you are currently in. the number you can count to changes as the universe gets older.

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1) so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame. surely?

...would they be different to a naturally occurring, but massively complex Conway's Game...?

abstract yet another big bang theory. nuff said. proposal the universe is expressed by, or an expression of, pure number: it’s counting upwards from 1, or counting increasingly smaller fractions of 1. or: the universe is an expression of the number count we represent in standard English as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13... all the way through to 10to the power 40960000000000000000000 or whatever number we’d be at now if time was just an upward count from 1, or a downward count from derived from 1 being divided into increasingly finer fractions. the universe is expressing or an expression of the numbers 1 to ∞-1 Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1) further space, energy and mass are emergent properties of the pattern coding potential of high count numbers – 10 to many powers at a guess. this pattern encoding is expressed at higher magnitude powers of number in objects interacting through a polydimensional space testing if the hypothesis is correct, there should be correlations between: a) data encoding potential of number at increasingly higher counts and b) high energy proto-particle interactions and anomolies at such experiments are being conducted at the LHC. specifically there would be anomolies indicating that the size ratio between us and early particles was slowly changing over time. i predict that the smallest particles would very slowly be getting bigger, relative to us over time, as we both became smaller relative to the universe at different rates. the rate at which our size changes relative to protoparticles will be a function of the rate of expansion of the universe. references http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_p2.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo why not? The universe is 1 thing. At the instant of the big bang the only bit of data available is: universe = 1 There hadn’t been enough time to express any greater complexity If time divides the universe into 2 discreet sets (the bit that is here now and the bit that is here then) then the potential complexity is doubled. The more the universe is divided by time, the more complexity it is possible to express. Dimensions become possible, even necessary, as ways for the fractions of the universe to interact as they are separated (they must retain their 1 whole, or it ain’t the universe is it?) As the universe divides into finer and finer fractions, it becomes increasingly possible for the fractions to interact in increasingly complex patterns Dimensions emerge [technical term lol] as a result of the increasing complexity Sets of fractions group together, finding efficiency in behaving as discreet sets within larger sets. The fundamental interactions emerge U/t = 1/(∞-1) U = Universe, sum of existence t = total time quanta that have ‘elapsed’ since big bang (∞-1) = right now. The total set of natural numbers it is possible to have described in the time between the big bang and now. Don’t forget – infinity’s right in front of us (and if you don’t believe me... come back tomorrow lol). So reality is infinity (potential, or possibility) minus 1 (quanta of time) _____________ One of the implications if the theory’s correct... is that our universe began when something crossed the event horizon of a black hole. _____________ [the reference in the first post to seth lloyd is an example of the data potential in the universe, although he used Hydrogen atoms as minimum data bearing points and this idea says that every single co-ordinate in a single dimension is a data point.]

why would it have to be a simulation? it might be a mobius tape loop, replaying round and round (albeit taking the longest route lol) ... self wiping in one direction and long enough the other direction for complexity to emerge?