[Mr. Nobody]

There are basically 2 distinct views of mathematics. Plato's view, that mathematis is real and exists independently of human thought as mathematic realism and the Embodied Mind Theory, which proclaimes math to be a language to interprete reality as perceived by man. I thought that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem proved Plato right.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

There are basically 2 distinct views of mathematics. Plato's view, that mathematis is real and exists independently of human thought as mathematic realism and the Embodied Mind Theory, which proclaimes math to be a language to interprete reality as perceived by man. I thought that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem proved Plato right.

If I would have to choose one it would be EMT. But, non is exact.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

And LIM is to do with quantized motion?
What about space, why does it exist?

LIM is not quantized motion but continuous motion of a closed topology but when two distinct toplogies are linked together the result is square of energy, which is quantized space or spacetime (at this infinitesimal region, time and space are the same due to the existence of LIM).

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

If I would have to choose one it would be EMT. But, non is exact.

So, do I. But how can one explain Goedels Incompleteness Theorem within EMT?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

So, do I. But how can one explain Goedels Incompleteness Theorem within EMT?

I have heard of it before, but never really get to know it.

Can you summarize it here?

[Mr. Nobody]

Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

If mathematics is incomplete within itself, unprovable, then this means to me that we did not invent it but are discovering it. If math is just a language, a description of perceived events, than it should be complete

Is the above statement flawed logic?

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

math is not a science. This means it cannot prove or disprove the existence of any real thing. So, it cannot be used to prove, for examples, the existence of God, mermaid, or unicorn.

Math is understanding the relationship of quantities. Since all real things have quantities, math can be used to understand anything that is quantifiable. And if it is quantifiable, then that means it is likely real. So math can be evidence for proving the existence of God, if God can be quantified. The same goes for mermaids and unicorns.

mathematical ideas are simply the products of human imaginations abstracted by the use of number systems for describing idealized observations about the external physical world and establishing a logical connection between the internal virtual mind and real brain, or imaginary force and real energy, or real space and imaginary time.

Wow, do humans have big egos or what? Mathematics is the result of the physical world being based upon quanta and proportions. You must have confused language with math. Language is what describes math. Math is a result of empirical observation. The concept of 1+1=2 was not invented by humans, but discovered by them. Empirically, it was found that if one rock is put next to one more rock, then there are two rocks. There are hundreds of languages that describe math, but math is universally the same regardless of the language. No matter how you say it, 1+1 will always equal 2.

So, it is as fallable as that human mind is capable of being deceived by optical illusions deluding it to believe in a reality which can never of becoming actualized.

Math is based upon empirical observation. You cannot invent a mathematical function that has no basis in reality. If you do, it is called a mistake, not math.

[AntonioLao]

volantis,

Thanks for your comments. What i'm searching is the ordinality and cardinality of of the real number systems (irrationals, rationals, whole numbers, natural numbers, integers) and their logical connections with the complex numbers and hypercomplex numbers (quaternions, vectors, tensors, spinors, etc.).

My main objective is to understand the logical meaning of direction and its relations to the concept of dimension. I'm working on invariance properties of singular square matrices of zero determinants for quantization of spacetime as the origin of square of energy, quantized space, continuous space, 1st power of energy, inertial mass, gravitational mass, electric charge, weak charge, and color charge.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Thanks for your comments. What i'm searching is the ordinality and cardinality of of the real number systems (irrationals, rationals, whole numbers, natural numbers, integers) and their logical connections with the complex numbers and hypercomplex numbers (quaternions, vectors, tensors, spinors, etc.).

The you would really like my book. I show how the ordinal structure of how the Aether interacts with matter to produce things like crystals, flowers, sea shells, and other growth structures of physical matter.

Of course, I also fully quantify the cardinal quantities of quanta. The Gforce, Aether, and matter are all perfectly discrete. As a result, you will understand the origin of the cardinal fine structure constants and subatomic g-factors. You will also see the Pythagorean triangles, the Golden Ratio, and their related equations emerge right at the level where Aether first meets matter.

My main objective is to understand the logical meaning of direction and its relations to the concept of dimension.

I cover this as well. All dimensions have a forward and backward component. We could start with length, which is probably the easiest to understand. Length is a line. From any point on the line one could arbitrarily choose to go in one of two directions. The other direction is 180 degrees out of phase. Length also has a reciprocal manifestation. The reciprocal of length is the wave number. To think of wavenumber, imagine a bicycle wheel riding across the pavement. Each full revolution of the wheel marks a length. We could call the length the obverse form of the dimension and the wavenumber the reciprocal form of the dimension. The obverse form is a cardinal value of length, the reciprocal form is an ordinal value of length.

We normally think of time as a dimension and frequency as its reciprocal. At the quantum level, it is the other way around. Frequency is the normal, or obverse and time is the reciprocal. Frequency has a cardinal value and time has an ordinal value.

Multiplication takes place between cardinal dimensions or it takes place between ordinal dimensions. But cardinal dimensions divide by ordinal dimensions and ordinal dimensions divide by cardinal dimensions.

Mass is an obverse dimension, and there is also a reciprocal of mass. Mass is a cardinal value where its reciprocal is an ordinal value. The Gforce and Aether are made from reciprocal mass and thus are ordinal in nature, as opposed to the mass we are familiar with, which is cardinal in nature.

Charge is a reciprocal dimension in most cases. When it appears as an obverse dimension (as in the unit of current) then charge is a quantity. But in most cases, charge is ordinal. We can thing of cardinal mass and charge as being associated with objective reality. Ordinal mass and charge is associated with the environment of reality. Quite naturally, the environment is non-material, but it is necessary for the environment to exist in order for matter to exist.

Einstein's General Relativity Theory is really a tensor between the environment and matter. I quantify this as well.

I'm working on invariance properties of singular square matrices of zero determinants for quantization of spacetime as the origin of square of energy, quantized space, continuous space, 1st power of energy, inertial mass, gravitational mass, electric charge, weak charge, and color charge.

You can continue to work with the mass-energy paradigm Einstein used. But you will not get any further than Einstein did. The theory has many serious flaws, and really isn't a theory at all. It is an elaborate mistake.

I'm not saying this as an attack on Einstein's work, but merely pointing out a fact that becomes very obvious after studying the Aether Physics Model.

You will find that the primary angular momentum and Aether paradigm is far more meaningful and accurate for physicists than the mass-energy paradigm.

[AntonioLao]

volantis,

Thanks for your quick response. Before looking at your book, please give your honest opinions on the following

the square of energy is given by



the invariance of fundamental acceleration and length is given by



c is the speed of light.