Dear Arved Hübler,

good work, although some people may consider it as purely metaphysical.

In the past, i have considered similar lines of reasoning and came also to the conclusion that mathematics must have been created. My current answer to this question is, indeed it was, but i have to make some restrictions on what you exemplified.

Firstly, one has to recognize that even...

view entire post

Dear Arved Hübler,

good work, although some people may consider it as purely metaphysical.

In the past, i have considered similar lines of reasoning and came also to the conclusion that mathematics must have been created. My current answer to this question is, indeed it was, but i have to make some restrictions on what you exemplified.

Firstly, one has to recognize that even before the creation of maths, there had to be some kind of logic, because otherwise the creation process you describe would not be necessarily appear at all. If the latter would be true, mathematics would be the result of an absurd change from an empty set to a – relatively – meaningful existence. For differenciating impossible existence from potential existence – as you have done stringently – one (and i think not only a thinker, but also ‘nature’ at is fundamental level, means at the level of an empty set) needs some kind of logics which allows nature to differentiate between impossible and potential existence. Otherwise even impossible existence would be possible! And what could the latter mean other than that your creation process is just a lucky fluke, an appearance of mathematics without any (and i emphasize *any*) reason whatsoever, a kind of nice and consistent nightmare (for some people) out of the very blue. There could well be other such emergences, not so nice and totally devoid of any meaning and order – but with observers in it! It your creation process does not presuppose some kind of logics, the latter scenario cannot be ruled out.

My answer to the question of what initiated the creation process of maths is that it can only be a higher consciousness who has set the stage for this. I therefore take it for highly probable that there exists an intelligent entity, usually called God, from whom the needed logic originated.

Let me say that this would be consistent with what you wrote. An induction process needs, in my opinion, something more than an empty set, it needs logics. Otherwise, as already stated above, the appearance of your creation process would be some kind of magic, or if one likes, a totally irrational event from out of a nothingness which is logically not limited to further produce all kinds of irrational events – all the time.

Induction traditionally is understood as collecting some data which does form a certain pattern and then induce something from it. In the case of an empty set, one has just a half bit of information: there is an empty set (or stated from the view we humans have now: there is no pattern). For your creation process to start, you need 1 bit that can make a logical difference. But an empty set is not 1, but 0. Surely, in retrospective view, an empty set can be equated with 1, because we can now contrast it with existing things, but if we talk about ‘nothing’, this traditionally means that there is nothing, not even an empty set (yes, nothing in the traditional sense is very hard to imagine; i assume because it simply is impossible!). So what you have done is to induce from the fact that there is existence to the conclusion that there has always been some existence, even if it is only an empty set. So, from this perspective, you have the 1 Bit, the empty set and the consequences of it – namely, the non-empty set. But you have induced it with what couldn’t be present before your creation process, namely logics. You circumvent this by saying that the empty set is a mathematical set, an homogenous background and thereby tacitly introducting the needed logics for your creation process to unfold. But if logics is already there, then also maths is potentially there. Moreover, one then has to ask where the logics came from, what i do here.

What to you appears as an empty set in your description, could well be the full gamut of God. In this empty set there would be contained all eternity. Hard to swallow and to understand, but some near-death experiences do report impressions like this. Surely this empty set would then also include the needed logic. I think if there is this entity called God, he/she very well knows what happens if his domain would be contrasted with something that is not this empty set. Therefore, in some sense, it seems to be very natural that if something (or someone) does try to transcend/leave the realm of God’s existence (due to free will), it results in a very real illusion of existence that is relatively devoid of all the good properties which are ascribed to God (i think if we wouldn’t have been created as eternal souls and in the picture of God’s own existence, the world would be not only relatively devoid of all the good properties which are ascribed to God, but absolutely devoid of it) Moreover, this realm of existence would seem to successfully prove its own absurdity and in some sense it does indeed prove it. Only take for example what i have wrote in my essay about extrapolating mathematics to be the only fundamental level of reality. This would lead to a world which is exclusively only ruled by mathematical relationships and therefore is strictly deterministic. No free will whatsoever, but only absurdity at the core level. I don’t buy such a conclusion but further stick to logics and it tells me that there must be more than a mathematical empty set at the roots of existence. Because an empty set as a stanalone feature of some existence - the existence of the set itself! and not more - does not make much sense.

Nonetheless your essay is a brave piece of work to tackle the big questions. Thanks for an enjoyable reading!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Arved C. Huebler

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They...

view entire post

Dear Arved C. Huebler

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

view post as summary

Nice essay Huebler,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

At this macroscopic systems complexity and singularities play an important role. The idea is obvious to identify the singularity M as a candidate for the emergence of the physical universe.

But singularities are mathematical problems, do you feel it is necessary that they exist in the real universe...

view entire post

Nice essay Huebler,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

At this macroscopic systems complexity and singularities play an important role. The idea is obvious to identify the singularity M as a candidate for the emergence of the physical universe.

But singularities are mathematical problems, do you feel it is necessary that they exist in the real universe also?…………

………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Be
st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Huebler,

Fantastic ! What creativity and fertility of mind ! No, I am not offering these generous words for your line of thinking that Mathematics or order alone must be the cause of the existence [I too have been worrying about it for quite sometime], but rather for the jugglery and ingenuity of associating the elements of logic with elements of physical universe, and for the attempt...

view entire post

Dear Huebler,

Fantastic ! What creativity and fertility of mind ! No, I am not offering these generous words for your line of thinking that Mathematics or order alone must be the cause of the existence [I too have been worrying about it for quite sometime], but rather for the jugglery and ingenuity of associating the elements of logic with elements of physical universe, and for the attempt to bind the unlimited scope of mathematics to the realm of observable physicalism.

Our minds are built to parse pattern and build models, arriving at a rational viewpoint that without a pattern, one cannot derive or predict anything. Therefore, we necessarily seek to understand how universe must have a rational beginning; we just cannot reconcile with the arbitrariness of nondeterministic 'process' to create the universe. Certainly, if a process does not have a degree of determinism, we cannot even call it a process.

Mathematical rationality of emergence of the universe is riddled with several difficult issues.

1. Eternity. Even the induction rule has an eternal existence. It does not matter what mathematics develops out of induction, but what ever develops is not bounded by time. Given the eternity, every notion would have played out in the past and continue to do so for ever. Only truly cyclic processes can be allowed. But then, again what fixes the periodicity of such cycles? A periodicity of infinity, or frequency of 0, could be of particular interest.

2. There does not exist uniqueness in mathematics. So, I am not sure which dynamical, or induction based mathematics should one consider as the basis for the existentiality of the universe.

3. Randomness allows unpredictable variations to occur. If randomness does not exist then following issues emerge. A static null configuration remains null for eternity. Changes are required to bring in time. Regular changes with finite elements may bring in time but it may create endless cycles. but then, if randomness is allowed then it does not remain mathematical. Of course, in our mathematical thinking, inifinity is the only savior to bring in whatever fundamental indeterminism. However, bringing elements of indeterminism via the concept of infinity and zero, would render the universe entirely non deterministic, and it would be difficult to bring in order, without an arbitrary rule.

4. The reason that we cannot reconcile with the idea of indeterminism is that once there is a breakdown of rule, we cannot employ rational thinking to resolve issues. Yet, we cannot do without indeterminism. One way to handle it is to hypothesize a limited indeterminism of certain specific 'kind' and 'limit'. For example, we may allow the most fundamental level of entities to have analog / continuous detail, which cannot be defined with finite number of parameters, yet they could change only in quanta, and have finite number of measurable states -- something like infinity modulo N. Furthermore, these entities may have constancy of relation among measurable states, individually they do not have entirely deterministic description, only relations have consistency.

5. It would be interesting to know if author believes that the process could be simulated even at smaller scale?

The most fundamental trouble that one faces is that nothing comes out of absolute null, cipher. Point to pixel posses an infinite abyss in logical construction. No matter what we do with objects of measure zero, we cannot bring about a finite dimensional object from it. The unfathomable leap in the argument is in this statement, "but as soon as the newly generated mathematical points are connected in very large dimensions and categories with a huge number of different meta-information paths, we can expect a delay of the mathematical frequency."

HoTT defines, "'a' is a point of the space A'. A bit circularity exists here. How do we first define A? We cannot, unless we consider A as a class whose members are constituted of 'a's. 'a' does not receive an independent qualifying definition from A. So, I take it as that 'a' and A have existence in mutual relation, in particular that of relation between a class and its members. Since no object can be defined with any absolute reference frame, therefore, this mutual existential relation is acceptable. You have used this consideration to get rid of physicalism.

The empty set is just an information, if we give it a status of the realism of substratum, then why only points, what cannot be imagined to have an empty set of. Information requires a substratum of its own -- e.g. registers for bits, quantum states of particles for qubits, and neurons for everything. That is to say, it is always the physical state of an entity that correlates with, or represents information, as I have worked out in my essay. And all interactions resulting in definitive consequence carry out information processing by virtue of natural causation. Without this physical substrate, information has no basis, no existence. One is able to talk about empty set, only because such a notion can be conceived of by the function of neurons.

"The impossible existence (_) leads logically to its opposite, the possible or potential existence (○)". This is a pure magic of a magician working on the minds of the readers (audience). It took me so much to understand this. If the meaning, or notion, or information of 'the impossible existence' exists then of course, it leads to its own opposition. In a context of nothingness of all existence, even this information has no basis. I could grant this under the notion of 'cogito, ergo sum'. But then, we all already know, we exist. The existence is brought about by simply asking the right contradictory question, a discrete question, leads to discrete contradictory existence.

As you sought -- a logical step forward could be to seek an evolutionary path for laws or function (natural causation) of universe, such that starting from nearly no determinism, the laws acquire (evolve) greater determinism, without ever achieving absolute determinism. The absolute determinism is as much of a trouble as absolute null to begin with. Or, a hypothesized limited determinism may also work.

By the way, natural causation is non-violative, as the information processing emerges from it as I have shown. Therefore, one has to show exactly how this version of causation may come about.

Rajiv

P.S. I had to read your essay so many times, yet do not understand fully.

view post as summary