To me this isomorphism looks like the deeper underlaying problem of explaining, or defining, information (shannon information aside in this case);

**One could say that information needs an interpretor (or, must be possible in principle, to interpret) in order to be information (meaning, acctually transfering information). **

Or in other words, it’s a chicken&egg problem; Which one comes first? The chicken (the material universe) or the egg (the math) which is describing (watch out for the paradox) what potentially already exist.

So yes, I think you missed the “mystery”. I say “mystery” only because whether it’s a mystery must depend on your axiom, namely how everything came into existence in the irst place.

In short, cosmogony. Which is, it follows logically (due to our axioms), essentially a religious question.

The sender-receiver (chicken&egg) structure points to intent. One cannot exist without the other. It simply can’t.

// Rolf Lampa

]]>Now, and the Flow of Time, by Richard A. Muller and Shaun Maguire

Cosmology from quantum potential, by Ahmed Farag Ali, Saurya Das

Electron time, mass and zitter, by David Hestenes

Some Initial Comparisons Between the Russian Research on “The Nature of Torsion” and the Tiller Model of “Psychoenergetic Science”: Part I, by William Tiller.

These papers should be especially interesting if you first read the experimental results I linked to in the comment on your Quora answer! You also may be interested in some original mathematics I completed this last summer. Almost a year ago I invented a counter-example to Tennenbaum’s Theorem. I established set theoretic foundations in ZFC/AFA but essentially you can think of it as the structure {N x N, <, +, *, (1,0), (0,0)} with the lexicographic order, coordinate-wise addition, and multiplication defined by:

(a, b) * (c, d) = (a * c, b * c + a * d + b * d).

It’s pretty straightforward and simple to demonstrate that these operations are recursive and, of course, there is no isomorphism, hence, the counter-example.

After writing a short paper formally demonstrating the counter-example, I immediately embarked on extending it out to algebraic closure and, in the process, realized (discovered) that there exists a countable subsumption hierarchy of Universes with recursive functions which conforms to the geometric sequence {2^n}; the Universe we traditionally call “standard” is simply the zeroeth-order Universe in this hierarchy! We have:

0) {N, <, +, *, 1, 0};

1) {N x N, <, +, *, (1, 0), (0, 0)};

2) {N x N x N x N, <, +, *, (1, 0, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0, 0)};

3) {N x N x N x N x N x N x N x N, <, +, *, (1, 0, 0, 0,0, 0, 0, 0 ), (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)};

.

.

.

I have very little formal education and no affiliation so I posted the relevant papers to Vixra:

http://vixra.org/author/wes_hansen

In the Q-Universe paper, the order as defined on the q-rationals is not satisfactory in that it doesn't hold on the entire set, but I tried several different things and couldn't seem to get anything to work satisfactorily. So I went with the standard definition because it holds over most of the set and I could at least prove well-definedness!

]]>was this a misdirection of my abilities (no matter they’re)?

Programs in English, overseas languages, public talking,

authorities, philosophy, historical past, economics, mathematics, and laptop science,

amongst others, are useful https://math-problem-solver.com/ .

One has to know their limits.

]]>https://doubleconformal.wordpress.com/

I love to play at the interface between math, perception, and mind. There is some fruitful stuff to be discovered around there!

]]>nice intro to clifford algebra ]]>

To get on my soapbox for a second – the fact that mathematics works to describe our physical universe tells us: (1) that the physical universe is logically consistent (for the most part); and (2) that there are symmetries in the physical universe (as stated in a previous post), which we know exist up to a certain level of accuracy.

When nature approaches a logical inconsistency (such as 1/x), there must be a way to get around that inconsistency; e.g., by shooting out a photon of light. If there was an observable logical inconsistency in nature, it would lead to paradoxes that we probably could not wrap our heads around, and almost certainly wouldn’t be able to use mathematics to describe. That the universe is logically consistent even in the infinite spaces we don’t yet understand is a matter of philosophy at this time.

The fact that there are symmetries to the physical universe up to a certain level of accuracy is evident by the fact that we can write equations at all that say “this equals that.” Without symmetry, we wouldn’t have nature’s building blocks, and the simplest of structures would require too much energy to create. But we wouldn’t have known without studying the physical world that these symmetries existed, and if these symmetries didn’t exist then none of this beautiful algebra would be useful. That the universe is symmetric below the level of accuracy we can measure is, again, a matter of philosophy at this time.

On a side note – I don’t share your dis-satisfaction of the cross-product (and the fact that it is non-associative as pointed out by the previous post). These are simply limitations of our views of vectors. As Clifford and Geometric Algebra bring to light, but which we still haven’t been able to fully internalize because our formal education gets in the way, is that we have to stop thinking about vectors and scalars by themselves. When you think of vectors and scalars together, the cross-product is much more beautiful then your writings suggest. Plus, I always get a little weary when someone claims that a mathematical structure that clearly has tremendous applicability to physics does not have deep meaning behind it.

I’m going to be writing a book in the near future on a mathematical framework that shows many of these algebraic ideas in a framework that I think is much more intuitive and easy to understand. So easy, in fact, that I plan on teaching it to my three young kids when they get to middle school. This is based on 15 years of my personal self-reflections (and rotations) on this topic. I was a physics and math undergraduate and went on to get an M.S. in mathematics – even though I work as an engineer for my day job, I have continued to advance this work in my spare time. I did all this in a vacuum, only to become aware more recently of Clifford and Geometric Algebras as I started doing research to support a Ph.D. thesis on this topic that I will be pursuing starting next year. I think these previous algebras are good starting points, but they are missing some basic principles that make them more complex and less applicable than they should be. If you are interested in talking about this more let me know – I have been struggling to find anybody I can share this with and based on work you’ve done I feel like you have a deep appreciation for the beauty and connected-ness of this type of mathematics.

]]>