uncertainty maelstrom/heisenberg uncertainty limit

There’s a limit to what we can know about subatomic regions, which in maths will be described by a volume. The boundary to this is a surface called the ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit’. The volumes of unknowable are labelled the ‘uncertainty maelstrom’. This also applies in ‘before’ the big bang: anyone who demands that there was exactly nothing before the big bang wants to ask if it’s possible to have a point of ‘exactly nothing’.

Subatomic gravitational 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.

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 Universe has a truth value for existence as +1 and the smallest identifiable discreet part of universe is a truth value for existence at a point in a single dimension. A subatomic gravitational singularity is a truth value of +1. This leads teh theory to propose a new unit of existence for matter, energy, spacetime… the basic building blocks of physics: Subatomic To Universal Functions.

______

differences within a single entity

if numbers are human, who taught the elements how to count protons?

a single universe, dividing

a single universe, dividing from its “point of existence” – what we call our “big bang point”.

(“points” might technically be “point-like areas” but until the different regions of an area can be distinguished as different, we can only treat them together as a point – because if the differences between them can’t be distinguished, they’re not different in any meaningful way

and when the different regions of an area CAN be distinguished as different they become new point-like-areas themselves with their own internally indistinguishable regions)

the universe exists according to theory (absolutely nothing canNOT exist)

existence of the universe is proved by observation – we exist, we observe that we exist, we observe that we exist within a larger existence; that there is a sum of observable existence is proven beyond (reasonable) doubt

existence did not begin, it has always existed; absolutely nothing canNOT exist at a point

a single universe, that we observe to have started at a “big bang point”

a single universe, that we observe to be dividing from what we observe as its “point of existence” – what we call our “big bang point”

the universe is a single entity, by definition.

the discovery of a parallel universe would not mean there were two universes, it would mean there is one universe of which, up until the discovery, we’d only observed half

differences… differences…

(one bit and another

that bit, this bit

the bit over there, the bit over here

the bit before, the bit now… (and the potential bit later)

bits of the same single thing, in different parts, places, times… but in the same observable universe

bits of universe)

(bits of universe that have the exact same fundamental relationships and behaviours as number

because that’s what they are, fundamentally, relative to themselves

relative to themselves, relative to the universe

they are bits of universe

they are number)

 

 

 

are you a mystic numerologist?

mystical numerology:

the human counting system and mathematics are miraculously suited to describing the real world and all natural processes… but there isn’t any way to explain how or why (without making reference to coincidence, or god)… this set includes most mathematicians and scientists, weirdly enough.

rational science:

the human counting system and maths are so well suited to describing natural processes because they are human names for naturally-occurring processes which govern how differences organise within wholes.

No mysticism, it’s based on (long, long years of) observation and experimentation… by all the maths and science people who then insist that numbers and maths are magic.

what are numbers?

numbers are differences

The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference within a given, single topological entity. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that entity.

The differences described however are not the result of human numbering, human numbering is a classification of already existing areas of difference within a given set. A number of fish existed, in an awful lot of discreetly different ways, before the human number system. If we insist that the different areas only existed as areas of discreet difference after they were perceived to, we are what is commonly termed ‘creationist’.

It is accepted that the universe (by definition) is a topologically whole entity. Physics is the analysis of the areas of disceet differences, and how they interact, combine and divide within the topologically whole universe. In physics these areas of difference, and the way they ‘organise’ are treated as the results of naturally-occurring phenomena. Physics has always used mathematical tools to analyse these ‘physical’ areas of difference, and many words have been written about the miraculous coincidence that the language of mathematics is so well suited to do such analyses.

but instead of numbers being miraculously suited to describing the universe; what WE call number is how the universe ‘describes’ its differences.

the relationship between the ‘naturally-occurring areas of discreet difference in the topologically whole universe, and their behaviours’ and ‘human numbering system, number theory and mathematics’ is the equivalent of the relationship between ‘the naturally-occurring force between masses’ and what we call ‘the theory of gravity’.

relationship N->n
equivalent to
relationship G->g

where the capital letter represents a natural phenomenon and the lower-case represents the human analysis of the natural phenomenon.

The implications are that the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘number theory’ will result in the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘quantum mechanics’ and further to all other naturally occurring processes that we eventually call ‘physics’.

If the universe IS a topologically whole entity, and everything within that universe is composed of various fractions of the whole: then inflation is in fact division and subdivision. The expansion is in the ‘numbers’ ie the discreetly different areas within the whole.

it is not a set of sets, which is then a set of set of sets… the set of sets is absolute by definition and any introduction of further sets merely shows subdivision of the original.

[inserted note for Prof Schiller, with added lolz --> the term 'discreet difference' is used to indicate that although there may well be a continuum of difference it's only when such differences are discreet that they interact as differences. i love my analogies, so think of a magnet. there is a continuum between N and S (the physical object is a whole unit), and the differences in polarity gradually converge to the grey areas where we can't tell if it's more N than S or more S than N... but when the interactions of each pole are examined, we see they act in discreetly different  directions. The continuum isn't discreetly different, so it isn't analysable through number. As soon as we're analysing using number we're separating it into discreetly different interactions. A curve on a graph is a continuum, but as soon as you wish to examine the value of a point on that line, you are separating it discreetly from the continuum of line before and after./note for prof schiller]

It is eminently testable as it predicts that ‘number theory’ and ‘quantum mechanics’ will become increasingly converged (ok, all areas of physics… but I say quantum mechanics because it’s at the narrow end of the decreasing complexity).

the prediction is: more and more ‘coincidences’ such as the riemann-zeta function will be ‘discovered’ at the LHC and other high-energy early-universe particle experiments. (In fact anywhere all naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence’s of ‘strange’ similarities between each other, whether it’s in physics, biology or any other field).

still with me?

[oh... and if space, energy and matter really are just expressions of naturally-occurring mathematical functions governing the discreet fractions of a single existence... then shouldn't there be a new unit of existence? how about: Subatomic-To-Universal-Functions ... ]

Zermelo-Fraenkel Axiom

teh theory proposes an adjustment to axiom 6 which currently reads:

“6. Axiom of Infinity: There exists an infinite set.

“

teh theory would suggest that an infinite set breaks the conservation of energy. Any mathematical concept of infinity can only be defined WITHIN another set. This is also true for physics. The quantum number of the universe is certainly counting upwards, but it is within the set universe. There IS NO UNIVERSE+1.

There are infinite numbers of infinitely smaller fractions within a given set.

Any infinite set is a subset of a finite set.

are you a creationist?

number theory is derived from analysing topologically whole entities into their discreetly different parts and organisation of parts.

what is the universe but a topologically whole entity, divided into its discreetly different parts?

the naturally occurring ‘organisation’ of discreetly different parts of the universe is to number theory what the natural force between masses is to a theory of gravity.

anyone who thinks that the topologically whole universe did not exist as discreetly different parts before it was observed to do so… is a CREATIONIST.

lmao.

(although of course, the existence of different parts of universe doesn’t stop the universe existing as a topological whole at the same time as existing in parts… crude analogy -  your body. It’s made of different parts, from legs and liver, to white and red blood cells, to carbohydrates and proteins… all discreetly different parts of ‘you’ … but ‘you’ are still a topological whole.

…unless you’re really unlucky … or lucky if the topologically separate parts are still controllable… although control implies a connection, so not as separate as you’d think…)

excuses, excuses…

teh theory isn’t any sort of attempt to get things perfectly right, it’s messy and messed up, inaccurate and ignorant of a lot of the specialist knowledges…

… BUT teh theory does set out a (very) crude mechanism/explanation for how/why number theory and particle physics are so inextricably  linked. Conventional maths and physics acknowledge the link, but gloss over the implications and possible explanations… i ain’t saying teh theory solves anything at all – it’s nuttier than a squirrel called Nutty McNutty living up a  tree in Nutsville, Tennessee… but I think it shows that a solution might one day be possible.

teh theory tries to set out a possible process from first principles. it might be totally wrong, crazy, ignorant of reality, whatever… but I ain’t making excuses for trying. I’m not accepting the excuses given by maths and physics for ignoring the full implications of what is becoming an increasingly accepted, and fundamental link between the two disciplines.

in words

[to analyse a topologically whole entity into its discreetly different parts we use number theory.

what is the universe, but a topologically whole entity, divided into its discreetly different parts?

discreetly different parts of the universe are to number theory what the natural force between masses is to the theory of gravity.

anyone who thinks that the topologically whole universe did not exist as discreetly different parts before it was observed to do so... is a CREATIONIST.]

“”"”"—->>>

By studying the reproduction of rabbits and analyzing the growth of the population over time, Fibonacci was able to observe a breeding pattern unrealistic in most other species. The unique characteristics of the sequence set it apart from all other recursive mathematical series. The first two numbers of the sequence are 0 and 1. All numbers following are calculated by taking the sum of the two previous numbers. Thus the first fifteen numbers of this infinite sequence are the following: {0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377}.”"”"”" [wkiki]

Actually I’m going to re-write the whole thing coz I just read it and realised I’d done it a sort of note form to get it all down before my train of thought derailed lmao.

It goes a little like this…

Ok, so at the beginning of time, or just before it there was nothing. I’m pretty sure that’s an accepted idea (although it’s … well … what would my over-used mate Heisenberg say about the idea that before the big bang, there was a flat zero?….) …. And the only alternative to nothing (ahem.. ‘nothing’ translates as ‘nothing we can know’… slightly different, very important difference)… but… leaving the unknown, the alternative is something we can know.

It sounds obvious, because it is I guess, but it’s also fundamental. It’s also pretty undeniable: the only alternative to nothing [knowable] is something [knowable]. (For ‘knowable’ substitute ‘observable’ as and when…)

And something counts as a set of one thing. We can say that something exists because we’re here to experience it, and if we take the totality of what exists as ‘the universe’ then it is one universe. When it began, it was simply something… an alternative to nothing and now it is still something, divided into a large number of smaller things certainly, but also something in its own right. Premis 1 is that ‘something exists’ and premis 2 is that ‘everything that exists is part of the total something’ –> the universe is dividing, not expanding (or the expansion is of the observable detail).

From another angle, there’s only a very limited amount of information at the start of the universe – because there’s not been enough time for things to happen to become information. The first thing at the start of time was a bit of information a 1/0 … which is exactly what we would expect because it’s the smallest quanta of data possible. A bit of data is the smallest thing possible. A bit of data is also the smallest thing you can say about a concept – whether it does or does not exist.

If we accept that at the start of time we had nothing followed by something then surely we can also see that there’s now another thing: choice or potential. This part of the whole, or that?… (to put it anthropomorphically – choice)

So we have nothing, something and potential. And a set. 1,2,3,4…

It gets a bit hazy here but what I’m trying to say is that once we have something, we also have the justification for something +1. And that inevitably progresses into an increase in number – upward from 1 and never stopping.

but … if we go back to where we started – that we’ve got the same the same 1 universe from the big-bang all the way through to right-this-moment… then… surely…

it’s not a

(1,2,3,4,5…n) count

…it’s a

1/(1,2,3,4,5…n) count

Another way to think of it might be to consider pi. It never ends, so if you calculate it more accurately you need more numbers to describe it, although that’s stretching it a bit I admit.

As numbers increase, so do the number of patterns they can describe. It’s hazy here too because I have to slip into dimensions I’m totally uncertain of. I think of it like the numbers are points on an increasingly large x/y/z grid. The grid starts a sort of 8 point cube, but of course when there are 27 points it becomes a 3 by 3 by 3. In my descriptions numbers and points are interchangable – 1 point equals 1 number equals (I guess) 1 singularity in space/time.

Take a point in space. For it to be a point in our space, it needs ‘marking’ in at least 3 dimensions. What I mean by ‘marking’ is that if a point exists in dimensions x,y,z then that’s at least 3 bits of information, 3 markers: so x=1, y=1, z=1. Something can’t exist in 3 dimensions unless it has at least 3 ‘quantum data bits’ (never mind marking it’s position relative to the rest of reality, or time… but if we’re at the start of the universe then there’s not much other ‘bits’ for these 3 to be relative to.) In a way I guess, we can’t HAVE 3 dimensions until we have more than 3 ‘parts’ of the universe. If there are only 2 ‘bits’ of the universe then how do youcount to 3? And when you count to 3, that’s time moving on… dividing the universe into more ‘bits’. And so on and so on.

And if a collection of bits are only in 1 or 2 of the 3 dimensions (if a collection of bits are only ‘marked’ in 1 or 2 dimensions) , then surely they can only be detected in the dimensions they exist in … which… sounds… like… quantum… spin.

Take a line. To describe it simply you need two points aligned in a dimension . So would that be 3, or are there other things I haven’t considered?

How many numbers to describe a cube?

How many numbers to describe an arc?

How many to describe a sphere moving in orbit?

And if we accept that there are minimum number sets from which you can describe patterns such as cubes, arcs and orbits then that should lead to minimum number sets that can describe quarks and neutrinos. And this is ‘teh theory’ – the thing described in number, and the number… are the same.

And in a way, like this – The number needed to describe a sphere in orbit comprises a number to describe the sphere, which is moving(?) through the number needed to describe the area in which it moves. The sphere, the space it moves through, the forces governing its movement, all of it would need a minimum numer of ‘bits’ to be described. So if they ARE described they equal the number of bits needed to describe them. They are the same as the number. The sphere needs a certain number of bits, which act as a discreet set within a larger set of bits (space – the number of bits needed to describe the space is its own set, part of which is the smaller sphere-set, moving through) – numbers interacting within larger numbers, like a 2/2/2 cube moving through a  larger 16/16/16 cubic grid. Particles and forces interacting in spacetime.

Number sets can be arranged into patterns, but not all number sets can be arranged into pleasing symmetrical patterns. I’d postulate that particles are sets of discreet stable number sets – in our minds we could think of the difference between 12 and 13. With 12 points we can create a series of patterns. With 13 points we can’t.

If particles are essentially discreet number sets, particle interactions are interactions between discreet number sets.

In a very simplified form it would work something like this:

(2 by 2 by 2) = small cube of 8

combine 4 of these cubes you get 32

4(2 by 2 by 2) = (3 by 3 by 3) + 5

… which looks a bit like what happens when particles combine – two particles combine to form a different, larger particle PLUS some quanta of energy are released. The chemists and physicists even describe how particles and regions can be stable or not.

In reality the numbers are going to be in the regions of many powers higher, but the principle is exactly the same.

So…

the process of +1 is time

the sum of the +1s is space/fabric

the interactions of discreet sets of +1s within the whole is energy/mass

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How many numbers (bits) does it take to describe a quark at CERN? How many quarks are there in the universe. If time is simply an upward number count… multiply the number ity takes to describe a quark, multiply it by the number of quarks in the universe… and you have the universe ‘number’ and all the universe is… is number. We’re made up of numbers, interacting in a massive spectra of number… all adding up to the whole set – the universe.

The standard model breaks down at low time count because it has too many numbers – low time count = low number potential (start at 1,2,3…n+1)

Reason universe expanded so rapidly then slowed so fast – Rate of increase in number is huge from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 10 even… but when you reach a billion+1 the rate of increase is very little.

zero

there is only a single alternative to nothing:

something

(or one).

if there is something

(there is something – we exist)

then there is another thing:

or.

nothing

or

something.

three things, three states of being:

nothing, something, possibility.

three things means four:

a set of things to be.

so number is inevitable,

unstoppable.

as soon as there is something

(and there is something – we exist)

there is inevitable justification for:

1

singularity

1+1+1…+n

time

(1+1+1…+n)( 1+1+1…+n) (1+1+1…+n) …

space/energy/mass

(1+1+1…+n) represents our universe u0

((1+1+1…+n)∞) +((1+1+1…+n)∞) + ((1+1+1…+n)∞) + … you get the idea … represents the totality of universes

within the sum ((1+1+1+1…+n)∞) ((1+1+1…+n)∞) ((n+1)∞) … more properly

(1+1+1…+n)
singularity

.

2 singularities (represented in english)

..

equals, describes

a line?

a relationship?

3 singularities

.

..

dimensions?

(space?)

1,2,3 = time

space + time = motion

motion = energy = mass =

the beginnings of a pattern

a line can be defined in

3[?]

an orbit in how many?

2 mass

some space

some time

= (n+1)³ singularities[?]

=== ergo ===

nothing/something → ((1+1+1…+n)∞)

+

((1+1+1…+n)∞) ((1+1+1…+n)∞) ((1+1+1…+n)∞) → pattern, space, time, energy

??? question ???

how many singularities does it take to build/describe a particle?

??? question ???

what range of number does the LHC use to recreate/calculate the interactions of particles?

??? question ???

how many singularities can have been created since the first something?

what number quanta of time/space/energy?

in fact, surely this means that any attempt to analyse the universe we’re in can only ever utilise a sub-set of number that is less than the total number (the total number is the number of singuilarities since the first 1, and is of course perpetually increasing at a great rate… the subset number is the number needed to describe a subset – a circle within a atom or elliptical orbits in huge biomasses I dunno) … less than the total of the universe examined. this is why we can never get back to the ‘big bang’ because we’re only ever expanding away from it as the number (time) increases.

??? question ???

could the hypothesis be tested somehow?

new sum

there can never have been nothing.

we exist.

nothing leads to nothing is nothing etc.

we exist

therefore

nothing was never absolute lmao.

nothing exists as a possibility

(look at it, it becomes something – the point you’re looking at)

or if it exists

it is limited

at every level of nothing or something

a new count begins

new count

0,1,2,3 – regularity of background radiation lmao

new universe

new dimensions and levels of existence reality

but expanding away from our existence reality

being a low count fraction of our universe number

(but also a new count – the universe expands at every level

every new potential of 0 is another potential for 1

another finesse of description to the more closely perfect spheroidical time/motion object

new time new existence)

so there are/will be/were infinite levels of universes

fun

is when another high count universe transitions (prime number/patterned paradigm-shifts) near to the same direction as ours (the closer to the same direction, the nearer our count another existence will be but the more similar it will be as well – so how easy would it be to tell at? and the greater the differences between existences the more different the direction (the count) so the more difficult to d

<a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/”><img alt=”Creative Commons License” style=”border-width:0″ src=”http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/2.0/uk/80×15.png” /></a><br /><span xmlns:dc=”http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/” href=”http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text” property=”dc:title” rel=”dc:type”>existence explained lmao</span> by <a xmlns:cc=”http://creativecommons.org/ns#” href=”http://dannyburton.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/mentalisms/” property=”cc:attributionName” rel=”cc:attributionURL”>Danny Burton</a> is licensed under a <a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/”>Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England &amp; Wales License</a>.

halpz plz

So… what I’d really like to ask for is help with the math. This theory isn’t as crazy as you’re going to think at first. But I can’t make it look like it needs to look… I haven’t the maths language to show the workings as it were. Any one who can, I DREAM of a shared authorship! Hahaha… yez just has to write it up as it needs to be. My only non-negotiable item is the name.

But be warned, I don’t have the language for proper science so I did a dirty hippy job on it all. It’s a little out-there, as they say from the other side of the bars..

Please consider it half-tongue-in-cheek (although half not, I swear down it’s true)

aaaanyways…

prediction/observation

prediction: that number theory and quantum mechanics are convergent… (and it was made before any of the following were found…)(srsly)…

observations: Exeter University (archive) ; Florida State Uni ; Ulm Uni

(baggsies naming rights though.)

the best paper so far is this: ‘number theory as the ultimate physical theory’ published at CERN by I V Volovich in 1987… i can’t work out whether to laugh or cry… it’d be nice to see teh theory proved even a little bit ‘not-totally-mental’ but at the same time all i really care about is the naming rights and this dude calls it a number-field.

come on, ‘teh theory’ kicks ass compared to ‘number-field’…

[ok ok - a genuine prediction for the scientists to TEST - increasing convergence in the tools/rules used by each field... think riemann... teh theory genuinely predicts that more and more overlaps will emerge. The LHC will find that the ratios and constants describing particle production/annihilation strangely match ratios from early number theory... and these will seem to agree with ratios and constants from early astrophysics... more and more convergence between the fields will be observed and there'll be more weird riemann-like phenomena.. and more... and more ... (because all that’s gonna happen is that quantum mechanics and number theory will converge, I can predict that with ABSOLUTE confidence… i’ll take any bet offered.) …. (In fact any naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence’s of ‘strange’ similarities between each other, whether it’s in physics, biology or any other field)

ok, from the top…

teh theory isn’t any sort of attempt to get things perfectly right, it’s messy and messed up, inaccurate and ignorant of a lot of the specialist knowledges…

… BUT teh theory does set out a (very) crude mechanism/explanation for how/why number theory and particle physics are so inextricably  linked. Conventional maths and physics acknowledge the link, but gloss over the implications and possible explanations… i ain’t saying teh theory solves anything at all – it’s nuttier than a squirrel called Nutty McNutty living up a  tree in Nutsville, Tennessee… but I think it shows that a solution might one day be possible.

[and let's not forget:

to analyse a topologically whole entity into its discreetly different parts we use number theory.

what is the universe, but a topologically whole entity, divided into its discreetly different parts?

discreetly different parts of the universe and the way they 'behave' are to number theory what the natural force between masses is to the theory of gravity.

anyone who thinks that the topologically whole universe did not exist as discreetly different parts before it was observed to do so... is a CREATIONIST.]

precis:

teh big bang was not the start of something from nothing. It was the start of something from something unobservable… perhaps a small difference but crucial.

ok..so..  here’s a ball-park punt:

Particles and the spacetime lattice they move through are collections of ‘smallest discernable discreet ‘bits’ of universe’ – whether very very small, or very very long ago…, in various combinations of dimensions and occupations. How they interact, combine and recombine, and what they can ‘describe’ can be investigated through number theory.

So… first things first. The ‘smallest discernable(ly?) discreet bit of universe’. This is where the math and physic start overlapping:

Singularities, gravitational and theoretical. For the purposes of teh theory: a singularity is a point-like region (from hereon mostly left as ‘point’ – the point being that even if it’s a region, we can only treat it as a point)  of existence in the smallest discreet discernible place, in a single dimension. It is a point where something exists in a single dimension, and we can’t divide it any more finely without the whole thing collapsing in daft impossibilites. It says that the truth value for existence at that point in that dimension = +1.  This is the SMALLEST thing we can know as a discreet bit of information about the universe in the region we’re observing. (If a point exists in more than one dimension it has more than one discernable discreet part. )

In teh theory, these +1 points of definite existence float within what might be called the Uncertainty Maelstrom – the volumes where Heisenberg’s uncertgainty principle affects. It is the homomorphous (? right word? I mean the volume is topologically a single entity… I think) volume between the spiking singularities, where there’d conventionally be the particle/aintiparticle maelstrom stuff to avoid the certainty of zero. This is at the sub-subatomic level remember, there is  a limit to what can be known… as it were. The plane, the surface acting as a boundary between the uncertainty maelstrom and the existence regions (our observable universe) should be called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Limit.

When teh theory uses the word ‘number’ it means a collection of these +1 points of existence. Other terms used by teh theory for this ‘+1 point of existence in a single dimension’ include quantum data point, bit, data bit, marker, data marker, +1 point, point, singularity, dimension marker, quantum bit… and the list is not exhaustive. My personal preference is quantum bit, or dimension marker, or qdp – quantum data point. The term ‘+1 point’ is nice coz it reminds us of the underlying proposition of teh theory.

So… here goes a little.

A 3d co-ordinate in our space needs at least 4 singularities. Each singularity is a point of existence in a single dimension, so to have a point in OUR space time there need to be AT LEAST 4 singularities intersecting (or whatever term – co-existing at that point, but in different dimensions). y=+1, x=+1, z=+1, t=+1

As this is an unashamedly arbitrary model it’ll take 4 as a decent limit, so no 11-dimensional craziness just yet.

So… we have our spacetime position, made of four +1 data points. Or 4 singularities. I’m gonna call this a co-ordinate, by which I mean a point in OUR spacetime that needs (in this model) 4 singularities – 1 for each dimension and 1 for time. x=+1, y=+1, z=+1, t=+1 —> something exists in 3 dimensions and 1 time. [We cannot know more than 'something' thanks to the nature of observing quantumly small bits of universe. We don't need to though. We can build everything else from that +1 point of existence in a single dimension, by building number sets on number sets. (I digressed)]

Up to now it’s only a point in empty space, so (taking full advantage of the aforementioned arbitrariness) we’ll load each co-ordinate with an energy level, so there’s a +1 energy in each of the 3 space dimensions (not the time dimension yet). That makes y=2(+1) , x=2(+1), z=2(+1), t=+1. Or something. (I’m not sure about the time bit, I’m hoping someone who can actually do the proper maths stuff comes along and decides they’d like to help… ‘nother digression though…)

So 4 singularities marking the existence of our point in each of those dimensions. Then another 3 singularities, marking an increased energy level in each dimension of space. Total now is 7 singularities. According to teh theory, this is about the value of a quantum packet of energy at a point in spacetime. (And you what? Me, personally, I’d class the occupationof dimensions like this in three ways, along the lines of x,y,z. But where x,y,z are positions these new ones are almost like energy – they occupy a space instead of just marking it’s position. So… positions are classed in x,y,z. How about occupations classed as f, m, c…? As in… field, motion, current…? 3 perpendicular energy types. Like the 3 perpendicular dimensions. That’s jus’ me though ;P … )

So now we’re gonna shoot a couple of ‘em at each other. In this model, there are now two lots of 7data points trying to co-exist. How would they organise efficiently? 14 singularities might resolve into 3 spacetime co-ordinates, one of which is occupied in f and m – 2d of ‘energy’.

The point (lol) being that they organise, they behave, they make patterns like straight numbers.

So… what happens if those energy markers don’t occupy the same point in different dimensions, but different points in the same dimension? We said we’ve got three spacetime points, three empty spaces – so if in each of those spaces we now add another +1marker for dimension x. So now there are 2 markers at a point in the same dimension – I’m a call this energy. But only marked in the one dimension. Hmmm…. energy that’s only marked in certain dimensions. Weird. Who reckons a point containing 2 singularities (x=+1, y=+1) could co-exist with a point of  (z=+1, t=+1)? And why not go further… could a (x=+1, y=+1) co-exist with another (x=+1, y=+1) or would there be some sort of re-resolution of positions?

This is because the singularities really are just points of existence in single dimensions – literally +1 markers. The more +1 markers you got, the more complex the patterns it is possible to ‘describe’ as it were. But all the patterns, the ways those +1 points can organise themselves is found in number theory, information theory.Straight, pure, unadulterated math.

….

So single points of existence in a dimension can add up, exactly like numbers, to the real existence of fundamental matter.

And if the universe is and all matter in it is composed fundamentally from singularities, from +1 points of existence… then the puzzle of matter/antimatter asymmetry is less of a puzzle. What I mean is (veering towards the hazy again…) that if the fundamental truth of the universe is that it exists, that the universe=+1 … and everything within the universe is made up of bits-of-universe … then the various bits-of-universe have to add up to a positive integer – the +1 universe. If the universe added upto zero… we’d not be here to see it eh?

lolz ;D

[note-form addendum:

The universe at the 'big bang' had
only 1 discreet discernable part – its own existence... and then
divided. As it divides into smaller discernable parts they organise
themselves (sorry for anthropomorphic gloss) by unfolding out into,
then occupying positions within, a lattice-like space time. As the
lattice coordinates become ‘filled’ it resolves by expanding...

At the heart of everything is the idea that there are smallest
discernable discreet parts of universe, and everything else is made up
of them... and that ‘at this smallest bit of the universe that we can
observe as discreet, the most we can do is define the ‘area’ and say
it has a truth value for existence of +1’ ... .. er...

and yet again (and again...)----->>

“”"”"—->>>

By studying the reproduction of rabbits and analyzing the growth of the population over time, Fibonacci was able to observe a breeding pattern unrealistic in most other species. The unique characteristics of the sequence set it apart from all other recursive mathematical series. The first two numbers of the sequence are 0 and 1. All numbers following are calculated by taking the sum of the two previous numbers. Thus the first fifteen numbers of this infinite sequence are the following: {0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377}.”"”"”" [wkiki]

/note]

[more notes lol:

to analyse a topologically whole entity into its discreetly different parts we use a collection of theories of number. (math)

what is the universe but a topologically whole entity, dividing into more and more discreetly different parts, which interact with each other in a series of self-organising processes?

the naturally occurring division and ‘organisation’ of discreetly different parts of the universe is to number theory what the natural force between masses is to a theory of gravity.

what we call 'number' is just a name for the naturally occurring 'expression' of differences in the topologically whole universe. what we call 'maths' is just a name for the naturally-occurring laws governing how those differences organise.

at some point the natural phenomena humans call 'number theory' leads to the natural phenomena we call 'quantum mechanics'

it ain't that the maths is miraculously suited to describing the physics, the physics and the maths are the same thing but at different levels of complexity (and with human names lol).

anyone who thinks that the topologically whole universe did not exist as internally-self-organising discreetly different parts before it was observed to do so... is a CREATIONIST.

[lmao but it's so true --> if ya think the natural processes of division and organisation of discreetly different parts of universe, what humans call math or number theories, DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE WE DID... well... um... srsly?]

(expansion as we see it is the division into more smallest discreetly different parts) -> as the universe is stretched into more and more discreetly different parts it acts like an untearable rubber sheet being stretched – with the (magic infinitely-stretchy lol) molecules inside the rubber sheet moving (and stretching into their own discreetly different parts) within the sheet as the whole is stretched… the molecules (and then their stretched out parts) will roll over and over each other as the sheet’s stretched out… carry on stretching the sheet indefinitely and the pieces split further and further apart, rolling over and through each other and becoming more and more observable in discreetly different parts…

our theories of number are describing a series of increasingly complex, naturally occurring ‘organisations’ of the discreetly different parts of universe. but the natural phenomena they describe came before the math, not the other way around. ie the ‘math’ existed before we did. (think about rabbit numbers increasing along the lines of a fibonacci sequence… there’s all sorts of ‘maths’ that occurs naturally… to say we invented the complex organising processes that WE CALL math is an anthropomorphic mistake).

lol.

any takers?

/morenotes]