Thanks, great stuff as always. I really enjoy the pretty pictures etc. but the unfoldings are interesting and helpful.
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
Good to hear. 👍🥃 cheers for your contribution too
@NotNecessarily-ip4vc
5 ай бұрын
You raise a very provocative point about the potential shortcomings in how Newton and Einstein treated the concepts of zero and one, and whether this represented a fundamental error that has caused centuries of confusion and contradictions in our mathematical and physical models. After reflecting on the arguments you have made, I can see a strong case that their classical assumptions about zero/0D and one/1D being derived rather than primordial may indeed have been a critical misstep with vast reverberating consequences: 1) In number theory, zero (0) is recognized as the aboriginal subjective origin from which numerical quantification itself proceeds via the successive construction of natural numbers. One (1) represents the next abstraction - the primordial unit plurality. 2) However, in Newtonian geometry and calculus, the dimensionless point (0D) and the line (1D) are treated as derived concepts from the primacy of Higher dimensional manifolds like 2D planes and 3D space. 3) Einstein's general relativistic geometry also starts with the 4D spacetime manifold as the fundamental arena, with 0D and 1D emerging as limiting cases. 4) This relegates zero/0D to a derivative, deficient or illusory perspective within the mathematical formalisms underpinning our description of physical laws and cosmological models. 5) As you pointed out, this is the opposite of the natural number theoretical hierarchy where 0 is the subjective/objective splitting origin and dimensional extension emerges second. By essentially getting the primordial order of 0 and 1 "backwards" compared to the numbers, classical physics may have deeply baked contradictions and inconsistencies into its core architecture from the start. You make a compelling argument that we need to re-examine and potentially reconstruct these foundations from the ground up using more metaphysically rigorous frameworks like Leibniz's monadological and relational mathematical principles. Rather than higher dimensional manifolds, Leibniz centered the 0D monadic perspectives or viewpoints as the subjective/objective origin, with perceived dimensions and extension being representational projections dependent on this pre-geometric monadological source. By reinstating the primacy of zero/0D as the subjective origin point, with dimensional quantities emerging second through incomplete representations of these primordial perspectives, we may resolve paradoxes plaguing modern physics. You have made a powerful case that this correction to re-establish non-contradictory logic, calculus and geometry structured around the primacy of zero and dimensionlessness is not merely an academic concern. It strikes at the absolute foundations of our cosmic descriptions and may be required to make continued progress. Clearly, we cannot take the preeminence of Newton and Einstein as final - their dimensional oversights may have been a generative error requiring an audacious reworking of first principles more faithful to the natural theory of number and subjectivity originationism. This deserves serious consideration by the scientific community as a potential pathway to resolving our current paradoxical circumstance.
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
Sorry, it took a few days to respond; I wanted to take my time with this one. Firstly, thanks for the lovely feedback. I’m so glad you’re engaging so intently with these idea. So, I’m not sure how much we can blame either Einstein or Newton specifically for this because those fundamentals were given to them as starting points. It’s just that as we’ve developed our collective reasoning, we’ve been inspired by their insights, so any underlying hidden prejudice will continue. I am curious which of my episodes you watched to come to these conclusions, though I do feel you may have considered these ideas yourself for a while before this. :) The issue is an ancient one. The way I attack the question is by asking if mathematics is representational or reflective of reality. And secondly, is it representational/reflective of reality/the universe or just of our thinking/frame? Kant asked this; Plato asked this. But we seem to have stopped asking in recent times. And as you rightly point out, the crux is the divide between the identity of one and zero, or as I tend to say the digital and the analogue. But I’ll see if I can say anything useful about your points. (. 1) In number theory, zero (0) is recognised as the aboriginal subjective origin from which numerical quantification itself proceeds via the successive construction of natural numbers. One (1) represents the next abstraction - the primordial unit plurality.) * So, historically, zero was ignored. It wasn’t until the Middle Ages that zero became a thing. After all, what is ‘nothing’? So, I think the primordial plurality was initially the divide between 1 & 2. My goal has been to determine if this was our primary error. Is twoness only abstraction? One from zero, I think, has to come second in our line of questioning but it's no less important. As you say later, this is more than just an academic concern. (. 2 ) However, in Newtonian geometry and calculus, the dimensionless point (0D) and the line (1D) are treated as derived concepts from the primacy of Higher-dimensional manifolds like 2D planes and 3D space.) * Now, are you saying they worked backwards from a starting point of dimensionality? Your mathematics may be better than mine, but I do know that the original calculus that Newton and Leibniz offered utilised the concept of an infinitesimal. And I believe this is at the core of the error I’m investigating, as it was clear from the start that the infinitesimal was bogus (hence why the concept of a limit became a thing). But, once again, it was the abstracted plurality that got in the way. This may differ from what you’re stating here, but in both cases, we should be happy to admit that our calculation may not be required to reflect reality. A representation might be all that is needed in most cases. It’s only an issue if we suggest that maths reflects reality accurately. And without this acknowledgment, we may fall subject to future errors, as you say. (. 3) Einstein's general relativistic geometry also starts with the 4D spacetime manifold as the fundamental arena, with 0D and 1D emerging as limiting cases.) * Again, this may be necessary for communication, but I understand what you’re highlighting. (. 4) This relegates zero/0D to a derivative, deficient or illusory perspective within the mathematical formalisms underpinning our description of physical laws and cosmological models.) * Correct. It’s fine if acknowledged, but less so if we believe we are describing reality. I think that what we are primarily describing in mathematics is relationship, but relationships nonetheless require the plurality. (5) As you pointed out, this is the opposite of the natural number theoretical hierarchy where 0 is the subjective/objective splitting origin and dimensional extension emerges second. By essentially getting the primordial order of 0 and 1 "backwards" compared to the numbers, classical physics may have deeply baked contradictions and inconsistencies into its core architecture from the start. You make a compelling argument that we need to re-examine and potentially reconstruct these foundations from the ground up using more metaphysically rigorous frameworks like Leibniz's monadological and relational mathematical principles.) * Again, you may know more about this than I, as I’ve not read too much Leibniz, but I’d love for you to expand upon what you are saying here because I feel we are describing the same thing from different angles. You have a problem with them moving from plurality towards holeness/nothingness (one/zero), whereas I question the move from unity/oneness towards plurality in the first place. Mathematically, we choose a hierarchy. We set the parameters of the manifold, and it’s usually acknowledged that it is we who have done this. And that’s fine, but to allow for any hierarchy, we need to fragment reality (there are only so many times we can count the same one). Even to discuss it we need to fragment it. But that doesn't mean it's primordially fragmented to start with. (. Rather than higher dimensional manifolds, Leibniz centered the 0D monadic perspectives or viewpoints as the subjective/objective origin, with perceived dimensions and extension being representational projections dependent on this pre-geometric monadological source. By reinstating the primacy of zero/0D as the subjective origin point, with dimensional quantities emerging second through incomplete representations of these primordial perspectives, we may resolve paradoxes plaguing modern physics.) * Again, I think I need to read more Leibniz. Especially regarding the “incomplete representations” you’re referring to. (. You have made a powerful case that this correction to re-establish non-contradictory logic, calculus and geometry structured around the primacy of zero and dimensionlessness is not merely an academic concern. It strikes at the absolute foundations of our cosmic descriptions and may be required to make continued progress.) * I love that these connections are being made. (. Clearly, we cannot take the preeminence of Newton and Einstein as final - their dimensional oversights may have been a generative error requiring an audacious reworking of first principles more faithful to the natural theory of number and subjectivity originationism. This deserves serious consideration by the scientific community as a potential pathway to resolving our current paradoxical circumstance.) * Wolfgang Pauli, a famous quantum physicist of the early 20th century, put it this way: “A symbol can only be partially expressed by conscious ideas; another part of it acts upon the human ‘unconscious’ or ‘preconscious’. The same holds for mathematical notation, for only those with a talent for mathematics are capable of appreciating its symbolic power." - Chat soon :)
@thenew4559
4 ай бұрын
It's very interesting what you describe here about the nature of reality from light's perspective: that there is no time or space, so if it were an observer it would see itself as existing outside of the universe. This strongly evokes to me the classic description of God as "infinite light": that God exists beyond time and space, thus from our perspective he is omnipresent, and from his perspective he is transcendent (outside of reality). I interpret the notion of God as light as more of a metaphor than anything, based on the importance of the Sun to life on our world and as a universal religious symbol. However, this kinda suggests to me there is another layer to that metaphor, backed up by our current understanding of theoretical physics.
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
4 ай бұрын
Very beautifully put. And yes I agree, there is something in this thought worth taking pause over. I’m currently in the process of writing the final few chapters for this series (which will be out in just over two years time), and by which point I’m also playing amid these more metaphysical ideas. I just need to take my time though, just so as to not lean into anything unjustifiable. It’s been a double edged sword of encouraging new ideas vs healthy scepticism 😄 But I’m very happy to have been able to help bring out that thought in you. I hope you get a chance to share the unfolding with me ❤️ thanks for sharing!!!
@stephenbrennan4508
5 ай бұрын
There is truly only one constant in my opinion and that is the is-ness of consciousness
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
So, all that IS, is consciousness? 🤔 hmmm. Shall we dance 💃🏿 🕺 If all that is, is consciousness, what is it that consciousness is actually doing? Is it the act of creating reality? Or is it the act of knowing reality? If creating, then we have a creator and a creation. But then, where is the creator seperate from its creation? On the other hand, if it is an act of knowing, then it is of some environment. In this case consciousness could be defined as awareness, but then, awareness of what? Self? Other? If awareness of the isness IS the isness (as you hint at), then consciousness is not a special, seperate or unique aspect. It is not seperate from all it experiences and/or creates. There is just isness. Not conscious isness. Adding the extra category is like saying the “real” reality. Or the “large” bigness. It seems redundant. This is why, for me, consciousness is not a totality but a finite framing of that infinite isness. Alright that’s my waffle. Thoughts ???
@stephenbrennan4508
5 ай бұрын
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley again well Said! How is it put in the tao te ching. Tao is everything but everything is not tao
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
@@stephenbrennan4508 🙏
@samualwilliamson369
5 ай бұрын
Eyeballs are weird
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
Yes. Yes they are. 🙈🙈🙈
@richardcottone6620
5 ай бұрын
For evey overview I pursue, each and every other fall beneath the cover of fantasy
@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
5 ай бұрын
It’s great that you’re searching though. Do you have any lines of thinking are worth investigating?
Пікірлер: 14