[dleviwing]

Mike;
I have only one fundamental question in this thread:
Why do you say "Everything real is rotating" is axiomatic???
This does not appear to be a self-evident statement.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw77.html

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Mike; I have only one fundamental question in this thread: Why do you say "Everything real is rotating" is axiomatic??? This does not appear to be a self-evident statement. http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw77.html

I am not happy with the existing absurdities and failures of mathematics. We are overdue for a Paradigm shift in science, what has delayed it? This time, the errors are in the mathematics we have used since Euclid.

By axiom, I mean in a foundation by assertion that cannot be proved within the logic, so I am building on Goedel's ideas.

Euclid's dimensionless point is an esoteric concept. By definition it cannot be seen nor measured by any device. It is irrelevent to our material world, yet current science is based upon such faulty axioms as this delusion.

I am saying I have found an alternative to current mathematics that I believe will result in results, good and practical results.

It all starts here in this phrase. Let us ASSUME, and not bother to question this phrase: that ALL MATERIAL THINGS ARE ROTATING. An axiom is religious in all cases, that is Goedel's theorem put into real terms.

A central error of current maths is the frozen time of 3D. Without motion, nothing "is", so the frozen idea of 3D is impossible.

A major advantage of my new approach is that time and space are intrinsically defined - not as separate but as inseparable.

Is this useful, I want to find out, because I feel that it will unlock practical industrial and especially data processing and telecomms applications.

Oh, and a Theory of Everything if, if, if Fractal Dialectics leads to a single mathematics for consciousness and material form. Which I suspect it will.

[dleviwing]

Hi Mike;
I quite agree that our gauge theories are producing absurd interpretations. I also agree the error lies within the math.

The reality of nature dictates fundamental limits. Mathematics also has the ability to incorporate limits within the equations. Unfortunately, to incorporate these limits of nature we require a physical perception that allows us to recognize them. I don't think many mathematicians get out into the real world too often. Until these limits are integrated into the equations, the interpretations will continue to be absurd.

No amount or different types of math is going to solve these absurdities; only when a new perceptual paradigm of reality is imposed on the mathematicians will these anomalies be extracted from the equations.

Like many others, you only have one of natures pieces of the solution puzzle. Though it aids in the perception, it is not a solution unto itself.
Best wishes;
Dave

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mike 5 Fractal Dialectics leads to a single mathematics for consciousness and material form.

The creation of a valuable mathematics to study all kinds of logics and events, such as those in the mind and behaviour of human beings, the most complex forms of matter we've come along, will be a very neccesary thing for the development of the GUTOE. I already have been working on this all, I'm trying to prove that all kind of numbers of the form x+y=n when n can be changed without the change of x and of y. Then we will learn how our minds work, and also why we behave as we do. I really enjoy to imagen future schools, my own history class, with the teacher writing an equation in the whiteboard and then writing "thus, the 2ww occured"....it would be incredible. Also mathematics to sociology, antropology, psycology, mathematics to aesthetics, ethics, and, the thing that will make us come to the GUTOE, or at least will be the last of the important points, will be the developpment of Metamathphysics, which is the unification of metaphysics and mathematics to explain physics.

[Guille]

Mike, after reading all your posts 3 or 4 times I think I've understood what fractal dialectics is about, or atleast all of what you've exposed. But there are two things I still don't understand:

Recursive Analogue Binary?

and

What impplies which numboid/mudra something has? i.e. What is it determined by?

[Mike 5]

I have made some diagrams during my enforced silence by broadband collapse - plan to post them as soon as I can...

Originally Posted by <<>> Mike, after reading all your posts 3 or 4 times I think I've understood what fractal dialectics is about, or atleast all of what you've exposed. But there are two things I still don't understand: Recursive Analogue Binary? and What impplies which numboid/mudra something has? i.e. What is it determined by?

[Mike 5]

[quote=<<>>]The creation of a valuable mathematics to study all kinds of logics and events, such as those in the mind and behaviour of human beings, the most complex forms of matter we've come along, will be a very neccesary thing for the development of the GUTOE. I already have been working on this all, I'm trying to prove that all kind of numbers of the form x+y=n when n can be changed without the change of x and of y. Then we will learn how our minds work, and also why we behave as we do. [quote]

Well Guillermo, I wish I had a word that is not mathematics, or that is mathematics with the numbers taken out of it. Numbers deny the individuality of all things, numbers create the false belief that today is equal to tomorrow, and that the 11th September is no different from any other day, or the 11th november for that matter.

The trouble is, new words just mean mumbo jumbo.

In short, good luck with what you plan but my research is HOW to map reality with the rigour and precision of mathematics when you throw away numbers and homogeneity of space and time and things.

The mind clearly knows front from back. Up from down. With practice the mind knows left from right. Position and uniqueness in the mind are not cartesian and x+y is not applicable to the mind, nor in my view, reality at deeper levels. However if the world is ultimately mechanical, clockwork as it were, even our thoughts, and behaviours, then we would not currently have the mathematics to describe a universe and mind that are a) heterogenous/uniquely identified and b) logically predictable and c) finite

and the reason i choose ROTATION as the new key to understanding is that rotation does distinguish up from down, inside from outside, left from right as it were, clockwise from anti-clockwise and this can clearly then be applied recursively to generate positional meaning that may ultimately form mechanical descriptions.

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by <<>> Mike, after reading all your posts 3 or 4 times I think I've understood what fractal dialectics is about, or atleast all of what you've exposed. But there are two things I still don't understand: Recursive Analogue Binary? and What impplies which numboid/mudra something has? i.e. What is it determined by?

Recursive Analogue Binary:

Originally computers had two forms - analogue and digital. Analogue computers dd not fit our decimal number system, and lost the survival race. There was an alternative, never tried, to CHANGE OUR IDEAS OF NUMBER to fit analogue computing.

The real data of nature is always analogue and through Fourrier analysis can be reduced to layer upon layer of sine waves. Sine waves are the flattening of rotation, in a way.

So our digital computers today use binary - a system of two symbols such as 0 and 1 or - and +.

The Chinese YiJing uses two PROCESSES which are Penetrating and Swallowing, or Pushing and Sucking. There are ying tong tiddle eye po names for these, but penetration and swallowing are the essence to realise these are real physical forces and at our most animal and sexual we know all about these two processes.

The YiJing refined the swing of the sine wave form pushing to sucking and back into four - the basic pair had two mid points. My analogy here is the four seasons - summer autumn, winter spring, or the duality of dawn and dusk which might be photographically similar but are so different for the farmer and postman in the flow of the real world between day and night.

So this seasonal quadrality is an extension of binary that is fairly easily implemented into today's computers, although the "meaning" of the four double binary items changes 00 replaces 0, 11 replaces 1, and 01 is 0 BECOMING 1 and 10 is 1 becoming 0.

Binary is brutally on or off, hence the pixelation and aliasing and so on in digital data, the pops and clicks in sound files.

Anything beyond brutal binary is an attempt to show the actual flowing qualities of real data from the real world.

My favourite is to take the sine wave and chop it into six - I used this a lot in my own research and thinking.

The YiJing went for 8 and then 64 as a way to chop up flowing totality. In three places of binary you have 000 001 010 011 100 101 110 111

i use these in a different order so that pairs are inverted and it does not matter which symbol is + and which is -, which is an arbitrary choice:

000 001 010 011 111 110 101 100 000 001 010 011 111 110 101 100 000 001...

And so this is one way that Fractal Dialectics moves beyond number into position within a finite cycle of totality.

Analogue Binary is my way of describing dialectics as mathematics.

Recursively you can go on and on - taking more and more levels of precision and chopping in two over and over, or chopping fuzzily into 4 seasons, or 6 or 8 and so on.

Whilst it seems tempting to do this rigidly by cartesian equality, my breakthrough in Fractal Dialectics was to use only the actual form of the data itself as the place to cut it up into separate forms. So this is more like Fourrier Analysis - you only find what is actually there in the CONTOURS of the data, and chop it up by recognition of standard forms in that flow. The sine wave is the most obvious form to recognise, but you could make a lexicon of the forms you tend to find for each real data realm.

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by <<>> What impplies which numboid/mudra something has? i.e. What is it determined by?

Numboid has no clear meaning for me yet, I am trying to work beyond the concept of number, yet retain some of the functions and mechanics, numboid seems a word that reflects this heritage, but it was searching in the dark for some way of expressing what could be useful - a set of items that are finite, positional, combining both cardinal and ordinal qualities without necessarily being equiformal. At this stage the elements I use have dual components, and upper and lower or left and right element, and within these two positions are a finite list of either "numbers" or "words" or other elements. At times I feel lingustics is easier to work with - where you abandon the sequentiality and homogeneity and just go for what is real to human perception or mechanical device. However, linguistics lacks the precision to map mechanics.

Mudra is yoga position for the fingers. it seems to me that we are human and our bodies are available for assisting us to remember things. NLP for instance "anchors" a specific sensation, or cognition that ultimately is a standard electrochemical flow in brain and body neurology. So by placing your fingers in specific positions, and having a set of these, you can create a form of sign language that has "meaning", and that meaning could be useful. Where did I post about mudras and numboids, Guille?

[Guille]

Mike,

Thanks for the replies. I see you are trying to eliminate quantity, in order to have a language to do with reality, but, what is the kind of representation that you do of all this? I mean, you can't use 1, 2, 3, 4....You can't use any quantity sings, or any sing that reffers to a variable or a fixed amount, thsu, you can't use x or n to mean a number. You can't use any area of math: neither probability, calculus, geometry....nothing. You can't use graphing. You can't even use set theory.

So, with all these limitations, are you still convince that you can create a whole new kind of study for reality? Becuase, I tell you, those that have been the nearest to what you are trying to create, are Guass and Riemann with their geometries, but they made special kinds of geometries. This means they made a new kind of representation and measurement and quantity of reality. But you, you are trying to do much mroe you are trying to make a whole new thing! Just as a big discoverment as the discoverment of quantities, which wasn't a discoverment, it was in our minds already. So I can't think how you can devleop something else...It should already be in our minds.

By the way, you wrote numboids at the very bottom of post 4 in this thread, and mudra in the very top of post 5.