FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 3/31/15 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Adams, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/27/15 at 18:55pm UTC, wrote Demond, Are these distinct constructs derived from a similar study “the...

Demond Adams: on 3/2/15 at 15:23pm UTC, wrote Alex, Mathematics is simply a model (tool) used to illustrate...

Alex Newman: on 3/1/15 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Mathematics is used to make up things we think they are laws of nature. But...

basudeba mishra: on 2/19/15 at 4:19am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We thoroughly enjoyed your excellent essay. Mathematics...

Demond Adams: on 2/18/15 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Richard, Thank you for commenting. Perspective Theory offers an infinite...

Richard Lewis: on 2/18/15 at 11:54am UTC, wrote Hi Desmond, I did like reading your essay which was very clearly...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/16/15 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Speaking truly as a true physicist, indeed! Hands-On! Sincerely, Miss....

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi to both of you, in all case an egg is a spheroid, that it is sure and..." in What Will Quantum...

Steve Agnew: "Math gives us a way to predict outcomes from precursors just like religion..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, IF you were trying to claim that eggs could have a relationship..." in What Will Quantum...

charlie Ford: "This particular papers fabulous, and My spouse and i enjoy each of the..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

elena smith: "Basic Outlook principles that could save your time Nowadays, everybody is..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Joe, what is mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Let s extrapolate an universal Lagrangian Hamiltonian correlated with this..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

December 13, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Physics the Philosophy of Mathematics by Demond Adams [refresh]

Author Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 21, 2015 @ 21:13 GMT

Essay Abstract

Mathematics describes the logic of numbers while physics explicitly explains the laws of nature, yet somehow these separate disciplines appear eternally and intrinsically related. We can not describe nature without referencing physics and we cannot describe physics without introducing mathematics. Are these distinct constructs derived from a similar study “the logic of nature”, or is this a coincidental aspect of nature’s mystery? In this paper I will discuss the motivation of applying mathematics to physics and argue its cohesive interplay in guiding our investigations of nature.

Author Bio

Theoretical Physicists and author of "The New Standard Model"

Download Essay PDF File

Sophia Magnusdottir wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 08:14 GMT

Are you sure we cannot describe nature without using mathematics? In my essay, I argue that we can!

-- Sophia

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:52 GMT

I admit, I know nothing about flying planes, but somehow I find comfort in the pilots entrusted to land planes safely.

Inevitably our drifting galaxy will one day collide with another massive galaxy and this home planet will ricochet out of our known orbit and into a dark abyss. It is with the correct interpretation of mathematics entrusted to physicists that I find solace in determining what would eventually happen next against the various opinions of many that will undoubtedly offer speculative assumptions regarding these future events.

Sure we may describe nature without the rigors of mathematics, but it will only offer speculative assumptions regarding future events. Some events are insignificant, but I simply prefer the absolute confidence provided from the accumulated study of mathematics and physics.

Best regards,

-D.c.Adams

Sophia Magnusdottir replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 07:55 GMT

Hi Demond,

Predictions are always speculative as we can never rule out, strictly speaking, that the laws of nature change tomorrow. But the quality of speculation that is possible has nothing to do in principle with our use of mathematics, it has something to do with the laws of nature and our ability to make observations.

See, what we do when we use math is basically that we try to find a system that is a (usually greatly simplified) description of another system. We test it against observations, and the more tests it passes, the higher our confidence becomes. You can do the same thing for systems that are not math. Take the example with the black box in my essay. If you test it sufficiently often you become more confident that it is useful, and you will try to use it the next time. Do you really "know" that it will still be correct tomorrow? No, you don't, you are never entirely certain, you just become more confident. Math just turns out to be a particularly useful "box" for some cases.

-- Sophia

report post as inappropriate

Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 11:07 GMT

Hi Demond,

Would you explain further what you meant by: "Mathematics represents who we are and manipulates what we will become."

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 16:24 GMT

Koorosh,

Thank you for your question and reviewing my essay. The sentence means many things…but to offer one explanation without the philosophical conjecture-

The human body is undoubtedly a miraculous machine and it is only reliable because it depends on mathematics which is fundamentally reliable. It also is constructed to fails only because of mathematics.

Take for instance the blood pressure going through our veins. If it is maintained in equilibrium we live, if it is not -we die. This is a simple equation, but it holds life and death within the small parameters of an equation. We may do things to ourselves to offset this balance or maintain it. Otherwise, it is relatively consistent and we must depend on this equation to remain as reliable and predictable as possible to stay alive. We are at the mercy of a gauged equation every day.

Now consider the conception of a child. Its biology is the construct or "summation" of genes contributed by two separate individuals. A unique algorithm of their genes creates this new person. This algorithm iterated in the form of a DNA strand can represent who the child is physically. "Mathematics represents who we are"...

Let’s say we made copies of this algorithm and made clones of this child. The physiology of these cloned children are initially identical because the mathematical algorithm creating their genes is identical (equilibrium in mathematical equation). If we distributed these children to different locations on the earth and simply exposed them to different levels of UV radiation, their DNA molecules would change slightly and as cells repair/duplicate themselves during maturation, these variable DNA modifications or derivations within the algorithmic code is calculable and would ultimately change their physiology. Mathematics "...manipulates what we will become".

Once again thanks for the great question!

Best Regards,

D.C.Adams

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 20:52 GMT

Dear Demond,

I tend to agree with a number of your comments on others' threads. In your essay you refer several times to "physical laws", whether as "rules of the virtual game" or "web of mathematical laws prescribed as physics". There are different perspectives on this, two prominent ones being that the "laws" of nature are outside of physics or that these laws arise from physical existence. I tend to favor the second, and I'm not sure which one you favor. You several times refer to 'free will' as delusional which seems to favor physical reality subject to "outside laws". I view free will as basic, and compatible with physical reality, as I have indicated in earlier essays.

But I may have misinterpreted you, as you note that "it is only through the guide of human intuition that we possess the ability to confidently derive a mathematical interpretation." I agree with this, but I associate 'intuition' with consciousness, which I further associate with free will.

Your example of zero and infinity is interesting, but I tend to avoid infinities, not understanding their math and doubting their physical relevance.

You deal with complex ideas, such as "the laws of the universe are relative", but "relative to what?" Your development of perspective theory in terms of observers leads to a focus on density. I'm not sure I understand your statement that "an object's gauged field dimensions (volume) is represented by its density",' but I am convinced that density as the crucial variable is often overlooked today, most particularly particle densities.

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay, and best wishes to you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 22:40 GMT

Edwin,

Thank you for your post. Forgive me, but for an analogy I will consider a computer application.

I tend to think of physical laws as a software application of which there are many. Fundamentally we are capable of reducing the hierarchy of an application into a lower Boolean logic of (1's and 0's) on or off. Somewhere in between we use a programming language and interpreter that helps the computer initialize the application. This middle layer is the 'web of mathematics'/programming language used by nature. Nature represents the entire hierarchical structure. Our existence is, hypothetically speaking, on the upper application layer, a physicist may manipulate the program to build any application in an effort to render any specific event, the theorists binds the interpreter layer while the mathematician understands the basic code of logic at the physical layer. So yes, we may say 'the laws of nature are outside of physics', but that is only true because it is beyond our comprehension of a specified layer. Similarly we may observe strange phenomenon or failures that may arise within the upper application that have nothing to do with that programming layer (physics), but behind this programming layer, within the basic code, we find a conflict beyond our higher scope we must troubleshoot and investigate. Comprehensively the hierarchical system is structured on the dependency of other layers to facilitate reality as we observe it. This is almost similar to the concept of dimensional 'flat landers' if you will.

Nevertheless, we can not change the fundamental layer, we are only capable of modifying the upper layers of reality using our arrangement of physical laws/programming code. The programming hierarchy works bottom up. This means we are at some levels incapable of changing the basic fundamental laws upon which our reality operates.

Free will is limited. We must evoke a loop hole in the fundamental laws using the fundamental laws to create a desired outcome of free will. This is not free will, it is more an explicit negotiation of the physical laws at one layer constituted by a fundamental programming layer below. We are constantly compromising with these silly fundamental laws to exercise free will...so said the politician, banker, and attorney.

Every object occupies a particular spatial gauge. For ease of calculation, we shortcut this concept and assume every object observed as a point particle of mass which is very misleading. The mass and spatial ratios (volume) become important when we describe the bending of relative space-time in multiple trajectories. My definition of dimensions relates to a path in space or a direction in space relative to a designated superposition in space and it describes the object's shape (gauged volume without mass-think of a wire grid in animation). There are infinite dimensions in which an object may propagate (we may use only 3 and their relative relation to each other, but this method is a relative triangulation of dimensions in orthogonal perspectives -- it's also why I introduced infinities in relation to a hypothesized superposition zero- but both are abstracts and not absolute.)

Thank you for your inquiry and sorry for the long response, but you asked great questions...best wishes to you as well,

D.C.Adams

view post as summary

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 00:34 GMT

Dear Demond,

Thanks for your excellent analogy/answer to my questions. I am intimately familiar with the OSI Seven Layer scheme; the physical layer, the data link, network, transport, session, presentation, and application layers. I haven't worked there for over 10 years so I haven't thought about it much recently, but it does provide an interesting analogical perspective.

You say it works bottom-up, so we are at some level incapable of changing the fundamental laws upon which are reality operates. You then note that free will is limited. That seems to imply that it exists. I believe it exists and agree it is limited. But I tend to see it as an operation at the lowest level. To stick with the analogy, in ISDN the physical layer is a simple state machine with a simple protocol interface to the data link, but below this, the physical layer performs adaptive echo cancellation to optimize signaling. This adaptive behavior, (like free will) is completely invisible to all seven layers above it, yet it performs one of the most crucial operations! This is only an analogy, but, I think, a surprisingly appropriate one.

Anyway thanks for your analogy, which I found both apt and interesting.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 13:54 GMT

Dear Demond, I like the approach taken in your essay.

When you say, "Philosophy was developed to discern verifiable facts from fiction using the logic of deductive reasoning...."

May I ask you to use such reasoning to educate me on what an extended line in space consist of and how can you cut a line? Bear in mind that in continuous space, between any two points there is a third and a point is uncuttable. Yet you can swing the blade of your sword in the air without hindrance. Even, in finite geometry, the case is not better as I point out in my essay.

Then you ask: "How can something derive from nothing? If everything is derived from nothing, then something is ultimately nothing when deduced". That is the Parmenidean curse at work, which in my opinion has kept our physics imprisoned for millennia. I suggest we break the curse.

All the best in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 17:21 GMT

Akinbo,

Absolutely an awesome question! Based on my theoretical work, I found nature offers a continuous connection between all objects of mass inclusive of the vacuum of space. I proposed this as my answer to the mass-gap theory proposed by Yang-Mills. This suggests there is no separation to speak of outside of a gauged limit defined by arbitrary locations in space set by the parameterized notion of our preferred or detectable observation. This is why my equations describe spatial densities (as a parameterized gauge density regarding an object limited by the surface area as the object) that is transformed into a field matrix or a “hyper-field density” (a gauged density field greater than the limited surface area of the object) which is then displaced and dispersed in our collective universe (a global field density). Because we exist within the collective universe these densities, we believe as separate entities, are in fact ultimately connected with the gauge field of the universe. Therefore fragmentation is an illusion due to a preferred gauged limitation by its detection or declared observation. We may place over this reality, an abstraction of a detached geometric grid (Hilbert-Space) to describe a narrative of events in time.

That’s a mouthful of jargon, but let me explain in an example. Imagine a long fabric extended to infinity in every dimension. This is our uniformed global field. We may crumple a section of this fabric and declare, because the density of this region far exceeds the density of the fabric at relative locations, this section is an isolated object. We may crumple another section, perhaps not as large, but at another location on the sheet and assume there are two separate isolated objects separated by nothing only because we have omitted the observation of the fundamental fabric when we compare a limit of what we choose to observe (the crumpling of a location at a particular density limit “quantization”). The fundamental fabric appears as a negligible constituent when we describe the interactions and depictions of either object. We may add the distinct densities of the two objects to describe a conjoined gauged density/object or we may separate/subtract these two objects from the conjoined state to describe fragmentation. Nevertheless these two objects exist as constituents of the fundamental fabric no matter how many times we fragment/divide these objects. Also these objects remain conjoined to the fundamental fabric, so regardless of where they are located on the sheet, they remain “entangled” or part of the collective density of the fundamental sheet. The density of the fundamental sheet is extremely low relative the density of tangible objects, but it is not zero and because its density depends on the location of crumpled sections its density is not uniformed throughout! This suggests we may only discuss fragmentation in terms of the localization of a “quantized” measurement within a conjoined unit or object that is not uniformed nor constant–the universe. Through mathematics and geometry, our imaginary detached/separated grid points helps us identify locations within the field, but this is only a tool used to help visualize and represent the locality of densities within the confined field that remains objectively unbiased and constant.

I agree whole heartedly about breaking a curse of our own ignorance. However, one good thing about contemplating hard questions everyone avoids, it leads those pioneers into a path of discoveries others have not seen!

Thanks and Best Regards,

-D.C. Adams

view post as summary

Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 09:41 GMT

Speaking truly as a true physicist, indeed!

Hands-On!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 11:54 GMT

Hi Desmond,

I did like reading your essay which was very clearly expressed. I also share your view about the lack of a realistic interpretation of quantum theory.

I did not fully understand perspective theory and how this helps with the interpretation of reality.

In your essay you say: Quantum mechanics appears probabilistic because it attempts to identify the fixed trajectory of a gauged particle density within the perspective of an infinite field gradient.

My comment now is from the viewpoint of the Spacetime Wave theory (see my essay: solving the mystery). My version would be: Quantum mechanics appears probabilistic because the photon is a dispersed wave disturbance of spacetime and the electron is a looped wave disturbance of spacetime. When an interaction occurs (for example between a photon and an electron in an interference experiment) the probabilistic effects only come into play at the point of interaction (observastion, detection). Prior to this everything progressed as real physical waves with a well defined but dispersed nature.

Regards

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams replied on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT

Richard,

Thank you for commenting. Perspective Theory offers an infinite degree of dimensional propagation (freedom) relative the perspective (super-position) of the object or observer . It is this displacement in a field gradient (space-time) in a particular direction (possible trajectories) using a parameter gauged object (defined space-time manifold or 'loop') that creates a probabilistic outcome (reality) in quantum mechanics.

In other words, the ratio of the defined gauged propagation of the object (factored displacement of the real object in space-time -- value in a numerator) by a gauged perspective field gradient (a field of possible dimensional trajectories -- value in a denominator) creates a probable divergence which is the real outcome of the interaction. By inverting these factors we describe fragmentation (Quantum Chromo-Dynamics/fragmentation and the scattering of 'parton' particles/debris).

You don't give yourself enough credit... the main concept of your comment is very accurate and correlates with the main principles offered in Perspective Theory - we simply selected different words to describe the same effect. (Having different defined perspectives on the same reality is relative! Reality describes the accuracy of these possible perspectives.) Great comment.

Best Regards,

-D.C. Adams

basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 04:19 GMT

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your excellent essay.

Mathematics describes the quantitative aspect of Nature, whereas physics describes the other aspects – qualia. Thus, they are interrelated. Language is the transposition of information to another system’s CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context. Since mathematics follows these rules, it is also a language. Mathematics explains only how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. The interactions are chemistry.

All our measuring instruments have limited capacity to measure: one aspect over time. Thus, we take readings in phases. The same is true for perception. Thus, we cannot have all knowledge. For this reason, we take readings over limited time and generalize it sometimes linking it with other aspects (which may not be complete and sometimes go against natural principles). This “pattern of presumptive logical sequences controlled by a probabilistic array of options derived from a shared algorithm” explains our interpretation of events. Love is just like charge interaction and intoxicates one individual to be attracted towards someone or something else. When we come across our object of love, consciously or unconsciously we recall some past event, the memory of which is pleasant. This intoxicates us and we equate the whole object or persona with our sweet memory to pursue that “happiness” or “preferred state”, though it is not true – it may have other unpleasant aspects, which would be revealed later. It does not follow logic.

We have discussed measurement, relativity, zero and infinity in detail from fundamental perspective in our essay.

Reality is whatever exists (has a limited structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (knowable) and communicable (describable using a language). Perception is the processing of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some stored data to convey a combined form “it is like that”, where “it” refers to an object (constituted of bits) and “that” refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation). Measurement returns restricted information related to only one field at a time. To understand all aspects, we have to take multiple readings of all aspects. Hence in addition to encryption (language phrased in terms of algorithms executed on certain computing machines - sequence of symbols), compression (quantification and reduction of complexity - grammar) and data transmission (sound, signals), there is a necessity of mixing information (mass of text, volume of intermediate data, time over which such process will be executed) related to different aspects (readings generated from different fields), with a common code (data structure - strings) to bring it to a format “it is like that”.

Look at the structure of any equation. The initial condition or parameters are represented by the left hand side. The equality (or inequality) sign describes the special conditions to be met to start any interaction: be it the mathematics for dynamical systems to navigate through the Inter Planetary Super-highways (IPS) at macro level or the transition states in chemical reactions at micro level. Given the initial conditions, the right hand side describes the theorized outcome of the interaction. We may vary the parameters of the left hand side. That is our freewill (though our choices or degrees of freedom may be limited). Once the initial parameters are set, the right hand side - final outcome - will vary correspondingly as long as the equality sign holds. It is predetermined; otherwise there will be no theory. The equality sign - the special conditions – like temperature threshold to start a chemical reaction, are also predetermined.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Alex Newman wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 18:25 GMT

Mathematics is used to make up things we think they are laws of nature. But the essay claims that we use math to find laws of nature. Only nature knows its laws.

Do I miss something? Infinity minus infinity does not equal zero.

report post as inappropriate

Author Demond Adams wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT

Alex,

Mathematics is simply a model (tool) used to illustrate occurrences found in nature. This is no different than a painter painting an observed image or a musician scoring sheet music in an attempt to illustrate sound. Through the theory of music we are able to manipulate random notes (frequencies) to depict and communicate reality or imagination. Physics is similar but in...

view entire post

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 18:55 GMT

Demond,

Are these distinct constructs derived from a similar study “the logic of nature”, or is this a coincidental aspect of nature’s mystery?

To me, this is the most important statement of your essay. To recognize the logic of nature.

Good luck,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT

Dear Dr. Adams,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate