Crisis of Faith

[foodchain]

If you can have commutative properties for an axiom such as A+B is equal to B+A does this mean physically in reality that at some extent all physical objects must at least have one thing in common?

 

I mean A could be bob and B could be ann so you could say bob and ann is here and ann and bob are here right? On that note should you would not say annbob is here or bobann is here, so does equality in this sense merely apply to this existence in knowledge of bob and ann? Or what else is so fundamental about A+B=B+A that it can pertain fully or correctly to physical reality? Because to me for it to reach equality in another sense then applies at least a scope or scale to the existence of local realism, in that you can call either of them at any time and have both know to be at your house at a certain time, of course in respects to other variables such as being able to act on bob and ann in certain degrees of freedom in the first place.

 

What strikes me is then the ability to obtain dynamic variance which exists in reality. The reason this gets to me is I think I am missing something which pertains to my earlier paragraph. That is the relationship of physical objects in physical reality. It would appear that something base exists in all of physical reality which allows for the study of it as a whole, such as you can have a symmetry, in say the appearance of a species with minor variation, to intense variation of species say from plant to human, of course in respects to the ability to still study such at some level as a whole unit with certain degrees of symmetry, such as the presence of sight or DNA.

 

So I guess in terms of natural units, does equality or the use of such as an axiom itself need to be used as if it were purely a natural unit when used to describe physical reality, or is that to much positivism to use along with math?

[Country Boy]

I have no idea what you are talking about. In any case, various mathematical system model parts of the real world to a lesser or greater extent but are not the real world themselves. Making up an equation tells us NOTHING about reality.

 

"Or what else is so fundamental about A+B=B+A that it can pertain fully or correctly to physical reality?"

 

The only thing "fundamental" about it is that it is very simple. What reason do you have to believe that it pertains "fully or correctly to physical reality"?