the universe is structured and governed according to numerical relationships which existed before humans evolved to discover and describe them

the human number system classifies the physical constants of proportions and ratios which govern the phenomena of the universe - structures and forces, matters and energies.

The universe has a natural mathematicality.

The universe is mathematically consistent.

The natural phenomena physics seeks to describe and explain, are the results of the natural mathematicality.

The natural mathematicality of existence leads to the observed physical reality of existence.

This would explain the breath-taking mathematical consistency of physical reality.

The basic truths from which human mathematics is derived, are entirely based on human observation of the natural mathematicality. Human mathematics is derived from natural mathematicality.

We already accept this connection at an unspoken level: maths is used to check physics.

teh theory tries to explain that the universe as we see it is the inevitable result of existence – which by the very fact of existing, results in a natural mathematicality, results in this physical reality.

to put it in more words, with less clarity:

There is a problem in differentiating between: ‘math’ – the non-formalised concepts of number people have innately; ‘mathematics’ – the formalised symbolic system; and ‘mathematicality’ – the natural ordering of quantities, ratios and relationships in the physical reality that predates human observation. But these distinctions are important, as they allow us to seperate the ‘observed reality’ from the ‘description of reality’.

Mathematics and physics are based at their foundations, on observations about the universe we live in. Physics is a description of the observable physical reality. But maths, at the fundamental levels, is also a description – it describes the observable mathematicality of the universe. And human maths, at its foundations, is based on human experience of how the world around us is ordered. When ahs any of us observed 1+1 NOT = 2 in the natural world?

Distinctions between an abstract maths and a non-abstract physics are arbitrary (literally), contradictory, and false. If maths is an abstract language then so is physics. Both are human theories about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is not abstract, and the nature of reality is mathematical.

The human concepts of number and numerical relationships are developed from experiental interaction with the physical world – we have proof in a child’s ability to acquire math without formal instruction. But even then, the concepts themselves pre-exist humanity. We can prove some animals have an innate concept of number.

Experiental interaction – the effect of the natural world in which life exists, on the development of how life processes interactions with the natural world. Sight evolved from interaction of electromagnetic radiation with early life. Human concepts of colour are highly abstracted but they come from an evolved mechanism which can distinguish between different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation – as a useful way of distinguishing between the different physcial materials from which the light was radiated/reflected.

Yet how strange would it be to suggest that – because great works of art are produced from human, abstract concepts of colour – the nature of visible light cannot be investigated.

Human concepts of maths are based on analogous experiental interaction – how does an abstract concept evolve unless it corresponds to an aspect of the natural world which is useful to our survival? Early humans didn’t sit down and ‘do maths’ for teh lulz. They had a concept of number and spatial relationships because the world they lived in was structured that way.

The theories and concepts of maths, like the theories and concepts of physics, can be tested by observation. We test maths against the observable, mathematical nature of reality. So even complex theories are ultimately tested by not much more than seeing what result they give for 1+1 = ? If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong because it contradicts observable reality.

Even the mathematical concepts which don’t occur naturally, still have to prove they are consistent with the observable truth that 1+1=2 to be accepted. They have to show their BASIS is in reality. No matter how complex a mathematical entity, no matter how ingeniously designed – it MUST be derived from observable truths.

Maths is based on concrete proofs, not abstraction. This has been a fundamental error in the way physicists approach maths and mathematicians approach physics. Maths and physics are interconnected.

The physical and mathematical natures of reality are connected.

So, here’s the theory:

The universe’s physical reality is the result of the universe’s natural mathematicality.

Starting (for want of a better word) from the ‘big bang’, the sum total of everything – which has an integer value of 1. There is 1 existence.

As that single entity divides into smaller and smaller parts the number of discrete parts increases.

As the number of parts of existence increases, the complexity of existence increases – the complexity of the relationships between those parts, and groups of parts, increases – this leads to an increasingly complex mathematicality.

The number of parts increases – and the complexities of their relationships increases – leads to complex mathematicality -

As the mathematicality becomes increasingly complex – it leads to complex systems such as quantum mechanics.

A single existence – as it divides into smaller constituents parts – leads to an increasingly complex mathematicality – leads to this physical reality.

It’s called ‘teh theory’ – a theory of everything with added play.

There’s a limit to what we can know about subatomic regions. The boundary should be called the ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit’ and the unknowable areas beyond, called the ‘Uncertainty Maelstrom’. This also applies in ‘before’ the big bang: we have reached the limits of possible knowledge, not the limits of possible existence. Is it really possible to have a point of ‘exactly nothing’?

Teh theory suggests subatomic singularities spike out of the volumes of uncertainty maelstrom and are the first thing we can know about the knowable regions – integer values of existence. The same as the only thing we can say for certain about the ‘sum total of existence’ – the only thing we can say is an absolute truth about the sum total of existence is that it exists. (The term ‘sum total of existence’ is used to avoid the semantic arguments arising from the term ‘universe’: If parallel universes exist, they become parts of the same ‘sum total of existence’, no matter how tenuously connected to it they are; If they are not connected to our existence in any way at all, they’re as useful as unicorns).

As stated, there are limits to knowledge. Heisenberg/relativity create uncertainty boundaries at both ubersubatomic and meta-universal ends of the scale… (the same boundary at either end, topologically)… so at both the largest and the smallest there is a limit to knowledge. That limit at its heart is reduced to a truth value for existence. The ’sum total of existence’, by definition, has a truth value for existence as +1. The smallest identifiable discrete ‘part of universe’ is a truth value for existence at a point in a single dimension. A point of subatomic existence is a truth value of +1.

As all other physic derives from the application of natural mathematicality to these points of existence = +1

teh theory proposes a new name for the fundamental parts of the ‘sum total of existence’, from which matter, energy, spacetime derive… the basic building blocks of physics: Subatomic To Universal Functions.

Is there not a natural mathematicality to the structures of our universe and the forces which govern them? Was the path of Earth’s orbit around the Sun not elliptical before humanity evolved?

The physical relationships between quantities, forces, spacetime – these are governed by laws which have an absolute mathematicality to them.

Human mathematics is not collection of purely abstract concepts. It is derived from human observations of how the real world works – how could it have become such a useful tool in our understanding and organisation of the world around us, if it is utterly disconnected from that world? If mathematical concepts were purely abstract, they would be of no use whatsoever beyond entertainment.

human numbering systems are based on human observation of the ’natural ordering’

1+1=2 is not an abstract concept, it is ABSOLUTELY derived from experiential knowledge of how the world around us works

as the title says, as simply as it can get – the human number system classifies the physical constants of ratios, for quantities and properties

So teh big bang theory is complementary to Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis, and says clearly the muh is testable through investigation into the links between the development of complex mathematical structures from first principles, and physics – particularly early and quantum physics.

taking the base truth value for existence of any entity as 1, then all other numbers represent physical constants of proportion of quantity

the natural number system represents the physical constants of ‘ratios of quantity’

(the numbers are part of the physics)

(lol)

naming the physical constants of ratios and quantities

Part One

Just like colours, numbers are human names which classify the discrete parts of a spectrum. Colours name areas of the electromagnetic spectrum. Numbers name the discrete parts of a spectrum of ratios and quantitative relationships between physical phenomena – the ‘stuff of the universe’. And just as ‘bigger’ and ‘smaller’ are words from our abstract language system, they name relationships between things –relationships which can be objectively quantified in reality. They are names based on our understanding of the physical reality which we inhabit.

The number system is a description, a classification, a naming.

What we call the number 1 is not some abstract, ephemeral concept which only exists in human consciousness without any connection to the ‘real’ world… it is a name, a description, a classification. And what it names has a definite, physical reality. It names the physical property of ‘existence’.

If we accept the fact of ‘existence’ (which I hope we all do) then we should accept the quantity of existence is the equivalent to the human number 1. The truth value for existence = +1.

Hence 1 is a name for the fundamental physical property of existence – something exists. It may be 1 apple, 1 planet, 1 species, 1 Higgs’.

More than this, 1 is the name for the very first fundamental property of reality – reality exists. Every other aspect of physics is predicated on this truth.

Part Two

If there is 1 sum total of existence, it follows logically (and can be confirmed by observation) that this sum total of existence can be (actually is) divided and subdivided into constituent parts. And each part exists as a discrete part of the sum total. There is 1 of each part. Those parts may have similar properties, such as a group we call ‘protons’ – but each proton is an individual object, distinct from the other protons. Each is 1 proton.  Each individual proton shares every property but 1 with other protons – they are each discrete from other protons in the property of location.

Protons can group together in areas. Each is discrete from the next in location, but their discrete locations are grouped close together in discrete areas.

A hydrogen molecule has a single proton in the area of its nucleus. A helium molecule, twice that – 2 protons grouped in its nuclear area. The difference (and the relationship) between the quantities of protons grouped in the nuclear areas of those hydrogen and helium atoms is named by humans as being the difference between 1 and 2. And this difference of quantities is the very definition of their difference in physical properties, their being distinctly different chemical elements… a relationship that defines their very difference in nature.

Part Three

Existence is. And if existence ‘exists’ (as it were), if we accept there is such a thing as existence – then everything which exists is part of existence. There is a single existence, a sum total of existence.

It is important to understand that ‘our’ universe is not necessarily the sum total of existence. Some theories suggest parallel universes. They may exist, they may not. But if they do – they are parts of the sum total of existence. If there are two parallel universes, they each make up a half of the sum total of existence. And if there are infinite parallel universes, they are each an infinitenessimal fraction of the sum total of existence. The point is – no matter how many parallel universes exist, if they exist they are by definition part of the sum total of existence.

Because people love playing with language (even the physicists – and especially the mathematicians!) it’s best to make clear: While to some it will be self-evident, but sophists might want to try and suggest ‘parallel sum totals of existence’ which is a self-contradictory phrase, an oxymoron.

It may or may not be proved, but for now teh theory proposes that time is a force acting upon existence, which divides it into more and smaller constituent parts (or causes those constituent parts to become observable AS constituent parts). Parallel or not, existence can be divided into two halves, four quarters. The properties of the parts are at the first, most fundamental level – values of quantity, ratio: Two halves. And even a relationship is established, this half and that half. First half and second half.

But all the classification of the fundamental physical properties of existence, at its most basic – and fundamental level – is numerical. We can name the parts. We can define their fundamental property – they exis. We can distinguish their various quantities and locations.

1 existence… 2 halves… 3 spatial dimensions…

Numbers name the ratios and relationships of the constituent parts of the sum total of existence.

the integer value ’1′ is a physical constant in itself

it is the first physical constant (or something like it) as it is the constant of existence.

there is 1 existence.

whatever exists as a discrete part of existence, there is 1 of it

if many of the ‘same’ thing exist – while they share properties, they have discrete locations – only 1 exists in each different location

(it could be said they share all properties, except location)

and where more than 1 of the same ‘things’ exist, we can say – and demonstrate – 1+1=2 is a fundamental law of nature

FIRST

1 sum total of existence – this we can take as the first absolute truth. We observe it, we experience it – or we do not exist.

So: 1 existence.

For which teh theory will use the term – ’1 x’

SECOND

If we discover a universe parallel to ours, this doesn’t change the fact of 1 sum total of existence – it only means the total exists in two halves, each called a ‘universe’.

1x = 2 * ( x/2 )

If 1000 parallel universes are discovered to exist, each universe is then a 1000th of the 1 sum total of existence.

1x = 1000 * ( x/1000 )

If infinite parallel universes exist, they are each an infinitessimal part of their sum total

1x = i * ( x/i )

THIRD

If we take our 1x to have ‘begun’ at the big bang – it is still 1x now. Existence is.

The expansion is not OF existence.

The expansion is WITHIN existence.

Existence itself hasn’t expanded. The detail of existence has expanded. The number of discrete parts which together add up to the ‘sum total of existence’ is expanding.

To put it another way – existence itself is not expanding, it is dividing. Existence is dividing into more and more ‘parts of existence’. The number of discrete parts of existence increases, as their sum total stays the same.

A common analogy for inflation is a rubber sheet – stretch the sheet and the surface area increases. The ‘parts’ of the rubber sheet are stretched further apart – they can be seen in greater detail – first the chains of molecules, then the molecules, then the atoms that make the molecules – but no rubber has been added.

To continue the analogy just a little: the area of our rubber sheet has expanded – but the sheet has also been divided.

If it began as 1m square and we stretch it to 10m square – it has been divided into 100 ‘parts’ – each a 1/100 of the rubber of the original –  but each part of the whole sheet.  We could continue stretching down to near infinitesimal fractions – until we were down to the individual atoms, each a tiny fraction, discrete from the others, and each still a part of the whole.

So, teh theory proposes that existence has been ‘stretched’ (is being stretched) or more properly divided (is dividing) into smaller and smaller ‘parts’. And everything we see of this existence is made of the fractions of existence.

The complexities – of space, forces, energy, matter – arise from the various ways in which those parts combine and naturally ‘organise’.

We ourselves, the matter that makes our very flesh, is a collection of ‘parts’ of existence.

FOURTH

teh theory suggests time divides existence.

Time is the stretching force of the ‘rubber sheet’ of existence.

As time acts on the 1x, the 1x is divided into an expanding number of constituent parts, which become observable as discrete from each other and are then themselves divided again.

existence, divided over time.

hence:

1x/t = observable reality