# With a little help from Pythagoras

One way of converting 1 to 0 and 0 to 1 is to put Pythagoras theorem in a sphere and let it spin. Goes like this:

a^2 + b^=c^
Let a be the axis of the sphere, and b the radius.
Let axis a be a vertical 1 and b the 0 horizon.
Let a decrease from 1 to 0 Let b increase from 0 to 1

1^2+0^2           =1               sqrt(1) = 1
-.75^2+.25^2   =-.5             sqrt(-.5) = 0.7071067811865475i
-.5^2+.5^2       =0                sqrt(0) = 0
-.25^2+.75^2   =.5              sqrt(.5) = 0.7071067811865475
0^1+1^2          =1                sqrt(1) = 1

So what’s so special with this sequence? Well, what’s special to me might be irrelevant to you so it’s your call really. To me it says:
Imaginary/Invisible spherical equilibrium of 1
is less invisible as the 1 imaginary axis is compressed to -.75 by horizontal tension
and when axial compression -.5 equals horizontal ex-tension .5, there is energized equilibrium which increases in empirical visibility
to the extent where 0 imaginary aspect is to be found at horizon 1.

…and by this, we have generated a real plane out of an imaginary sphere, so 1i has translated itself to a real 1. As I have suggested in other posts, this is not some end state of the function. Axial compression, all the way to 0 “length” does not imply there is something lost of the unit. Spatial length is only horizontal, not vertical. We can assign “gravitational potential” to the axis and know that it is 0 at the moment of sphere, and 1 at the moment of disc.
That being potentially so, the above sequence will invert at c^2 = real 1, and the functional unit will then become increasingly smaller and de-charged. That is how reality is quantized by self-generated “gravity”.

I can also see that there are two distinct forms of equilibrium. The conventional equilibrium would be at -.5^2+.5^2=0. That is, when kinetic energy .5 equals potential energy -.5. This is the equilibrium in the classical world. But the classical world is not of a single unit as in this case. The classical world is of parity, and in a many body system, one thing absolute is, by definition, everything relative. So the other equilibrium, and in my opinion the far more interesting one, is the spherical one where there is no energy at all. This is a grey state of neither extension, nor compression. It is essentially dead to the empirical world of observation. This is when 1 is a purely imaginary 1i. In relation to the mod4 of imaginary numbers we can see that whenever i is raised to the power of even numbers e.g. -4, -2, 0, 2, 4 etc, it equals 1 or -1, but raised to odd numbers e.g. -3, -1, 1, 3 etc, it equals i or –i.
So how come the real power of the imaginary part rise only to the power of equals? Well, if my model is correct, it has to be so on the most fundamental level of single quantum mechanics/functions/operations. That is because any instance of kinetic charge has at its (invisible) center an equal amount of compression. So the power of 2 comes hand in hand in any realized, empirically detectable object. That is not to say there is no power of oddities, because obviously there is . Point is that such powers are of relatives and not absolutes, so instead of 1 or -1 we get i or -i. It is real values for sure, but they do not belong to a specific unit that can be empirically defined. It is more like “field” values.

Anyways, that’s what I find tasty food for thought because it plays very well with my imagination. But others work with other ideas, and perhaps you will find other valuables than I do.

Since the number 0.7071067811865475 turned up, both as i when function is ¼ real and as real when function is ¼ imaginary, I googled it and found something slightly interesting, even for someone who knows next to nothing about math.

For an example of an operator that throws its basis Kets into superpositions, here’s a function emulating a Hadamard operator:

julia> @def_op ” h | n > = 1/√2 * ( | 0 > + (-1)^n *| 1 > )”

h (generic function with 1 methods)

julia> d” h * | 0 > ”

Ket{KroneckerDelta,1,Float64} with 2 state(s):

0.7071067811865475 | 0

0.7071067811865475 | 1

julia> d” h * | 1 > ”

Ket{KroneckerDelta,1,Float64} with 2 state(s):

0.7071067811865475 | 0 ⟩

-0.7071067811865475 | 1 ⟩

Make of it what you will. There is something of importance going on there.
That’s what I think.

# The sense of Ramanujan

The translation of sphere to disc and disc to sphere is the cause of mathematics. One particular aggregate of such translations was Ramanujan a.k.a. the man who knew infinity. If you don’t believe me, and I strongly suggest you don’t, then you should instead believe Ramanujan, and I strongly suggest you do.

Take a look at my crude image of the two extreme moments of a spinning quantum of action i.e. Singularity. Don’t be too concerned with the numbers as such. The message is in how the shapes relate to each other, and ultimately how reality is relative to itself.
Most will frown at violating the trancendent value of Pi. I allow myself to do that, assuming that reality at its most fundamental form of existence is not to be understood as “fractioned”. Ergo, the decimals of Pi = 3 are effects from 3 breaking into a multiple of 3’s. In this sense, the infinity of Pi is a measure of process. And of course, assuming the process of “expansion” to be finite, as in projective phase being followed by conjective phase, I suggest the seemingly infinite sequence of decimals will ultimately run backwards to once again end up 3, or perhaps 3.1.

Now we may ask ourselves; Howcome R said all objects in the series 1+2+3…= -1/12= -0.0833333…?
I suggest he somehow found the One axis of rotation 1 and how it translates to an empirical reality of parity where all objects hold the relative truths:
6/.72 = 8.3333
6/72 = 0.08333
72/6 = 12
360/.72 = 500
12/500 = 0.024
24/0.5/0.012 = 4 000
1000x.72 = 720
1/12×3 = 0.25000000…..

The wonderful thing is the negative of 1. You see, the 1 axis will be gradually <1 as the horizon of space extends. So the first 1 is as small as reality gets.
It cannot shrink beyond 1.
1 is the beginning and the end.
Instead, what is gradually lost in the imaginary length of 1 axis is translated to an increase of realized spatial extension.
So -1 equals 6 radii times 2 = 12.
As 1 axis becomes -1 axis from compression, 0 space becomes 12 functional spaces. Have those 12 spaces make up 3D space, and we get 12/3= 4 directions.

Now we can perhaps figure out how day and night emerges as effects from this fundamental process, why the clock shows 12 hours and how 10 emerges from 1 and 0.

And Time?
Times are multiples of this process.
Time is vertical to space.
Phase inversions….tick/tock/tick/tock…….
Now you see me
Now you don’t

And yes, empirical reality is likely to only show up as ellipsoids, as the SHAPEs in-between sphere and disc.
Oblates of the One Body.

# How to make 0 of 1

After making a few comments on two quotes from Chaitin’s Meta Math!, I will offer everyone looking for simple, unifying ideas a way to make 1 and 0 natural numbers in the sense of being exact images of the most basic physical event there is.

After all, math deals with the world of ideas, which transcends

the real world. And for “God” you can understand the laws of the universe,

as Einstein did, or the entire world, as Spinoza did, that doesn’t change the

message.

To say math deals with something that trancends the real world is prone to be misunderstood if not specifying what exactly is required for something to be ”real”. One can easily read that “ideas” are not real, and then argue that the neural activity related to thinking is indeed real. It is also problematic to assume there is some interface which has reality on one side and ideas on the other. As far as I can see, that leaves us with the tedious old dispute about “media” and “ether” and how separate entities communicate and so on and so forth. It’s a dead end. Further, to separate the physical world/universe from their alleged laws makes for more problems, especially if the Godlike laws are supposed not to change the message. I will hold that the fundamental laws are descriptions of indisputable, physical events which are in and of themselves very simple. What we conventionally think of as “laws” are rather consistency in relative effects. I will also hold that the message is the messenger, just as I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

I am always searching for simple, unifying ideas, rather than

glorying intellectually in “polytheistic” subjects like biology, in which there

is a rich tapestry of extremely complicated facts that resists being reduced

to a few simple ideas.

I share this preference for absolute simplicity. Reason is that I believe the Singularity of Einstein’s GR is definitely real. If so, it makes no sense at all to philosophize about the Singularity in terms of complexity and a plurality of concepts like zero point, universal string, infinite density, boundary, heat etc. Rather one should make an effort to condense all these concepts into that which can generate and rule them all. That is to figure out which concepts are pointing to the same “unknown”. By doing so, I have come to the conclusion that there is ultimately just two qualities of reality; one is extension and the other relaxation. If you really want to simplify the fundamental state of affairs, getting rid of contraction and gravity helps a lot. This is not a new idea since already Ezekiel in his vision kept repeating that: And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went.… Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved.…

Now, Ezekiel said a lot of thing which I do not understand correctly, not yet, but one thing we definitely agree on is this: … for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.… Indeed it is, and I can tell you why this is so. And you will definitely not believe one single word of it.

To generate one 2D surface of space, we need one axis of rotation. That axis is an imaginary straight line written as I or 1. At this moment, there is no zero because the sphere equator has not yet extended from rotation. We might say that there is an invisible space, or potential space, waiting to be spaced out by fundamental force of rotation. So the shape of things to come rests in the momentarily undetectable sphere which is in equilibrium and thus void of energy.

Now, if we let this 1 rotate, there is likely to emerge an equatorial bulge. This horizontal bulge is the emergence of space extension. It is the emergence of zero as comprising “everything”, because empirical reality is all of these momentary extensions. If there ever was a perfect sphere, we would not be able to detect it. This act of disappearing by means of geometry is the cause of quantization and the dreaded “gaps” in physical reality.

Since a quantum of action, which is Singularity, is finite, there can be no horizontal extension without a proportional compression of its vertical axis. So as empirical reality extends as a circular horizon, at its center there is the compression of 1 axis. In this way the 1 axis is continuously translated into a circular horizon. This is how electricity is perpendicular to magnetism, and so kinetic energy grows perpendicular to the growth of potential energy.

But to keep it simple, there is just the fact that if rotation flattens a sphere out into a disc, there will be compression at the disc center. Perhaps a better way to say is that tension is greater at the perimeter of the disc. Whichever way we phrase it, 2D extension is not forever. Flat is as far as it gets. Then what? Now we have translated the axis I into a much wider surface perimeter, symbolized by the all encompassing circle O. Reality is but an ocean of such momentary extensions, but it is not static. It breathes and has a lot of spirit, right?

Well, lets have a phase/face inversion so that potential energy (compression) is released, bidirectional and perpendicular to the extended horizon. What is likely to happen is that space seems to “shrink” and there is empirical “contraction”. But to invoke “gravity” is a big mistake. Perhaps the biggest of mistakes. There is no force which “pulls” space out of sight. Instead we have built up energy potential which has to be released. Otherwise we need some influx of force to keep the unit flat. As we know pretty well, the flow of reality seems to prefer a spherical shape, and now you can figure out why. That is because axial compression, enforced by fundamental force of rotation, has a limit to how compressed 1 can be. The poles/ends of the axis can meet at the very center of the fully extended space/horizon, but compression cannot pass through compression. Instead I suggest the poles will “bounce” off each other, and as they do, they will take the horizon with them.

From that “bounce”, the all encompassing O of space will gradually shrink and be quantized. So in this way, zero translates to an increasing axis I. The trick here is to realize that 1 is never to be detected as empirical reality. The 1 is of a sphere, not a prolate ellipsoid. In a physical sense, there is nothing >1.

The God I have found is of this invisible 1. And as explicitly stated in Genesis, creation grows by cutting itself down, not in 2, but in another 1. This is how one quanta breaks down to numerous quanta, and they all spin. Mathematicians like Tarski and Banach has shown how to make a sun by cutting up a pea and rotating the pieces. Math is just as real as the world of ideas. Reality cannot trancend itself, and it cannot fool itself.

What is NOT real is the “You” who is believed to read this post. Self-reference of human mind is the fool. Were was “You” at the moment of Singularity? What was there to eventually generate this “You” of “Yours”? Nah, forget it. “You” will never know it. In fact, you can never know it. Why? Because, if the above is actually true, IT is what knows “you”. “You” are IT, appearing and responding to context as “You”. 1 when invisible. 0 when obvious. Oscillations….lots of them….billions, and the relative image of stable matters which is an effect of them being so many. As the beginning (and end), the many are but 1, and The One is a moment of perfect equilibrium and universal unity. Force of rotation makes The One a black hole sun, a sun disc…The Only Son. So God anoints Himself, smears Himself out, into the presence of Light. Booom, Big Bang….Fiat Lux. Light is a wobbling Zero, coming from and going back to the invisible One.
Ultimately, This is of course the same body as That.
Reality hides by being Everything.
Jesus Christ hides by being God.
Light hides by being quantized.
Space hides….in time.

Nonsense…..

# Meta math of Something

I found a book by Gregory Chaitin called Meta Math: the quest for Omega. I haven’t read it yet. Just had a glance at the overall picture. It lured my mind back to the case of singularity, which I have been fortunate enough to forget about for the past weeks. So per usual it had me repeating my simple mantra once more. Same message as always, albeit in a seemingly new package. I will post this now and hopefully forget it again. All the hours and effort I’ve dedicated to communicating this one simple idea has so far been a total waste of time. Sure I’ve been intellectually occupied and energized by it, but playing around intellectually also should lead to utility for all. Not only entertainment for me.

Before my rambling, I’d like to comment on a quote from Chaitin’s book:

Because in order to be able to fool yourself into thinking that you

have solved a really fundamental problem, you have to shut your eyes and

focus on only one tiny little aspect of the problem. Okay, for a while you

can do that, you can and should make progress that way. But after the brief

elation of “victory”, you, or other people who come after you, begin to realize

that the problem that you solved was only a toy version of the real problem,

one that leaves out significant aspects of the problem, aspects of the problem

that in fact you had to ignore in order to be able to get anywhere

• There is no separate “me” that has a “self” which to fool. Misconception from self-reference rules the game. No matter how much Gödel “You” have studied. “You” will never get it right, because “You” are the very incompleteness of the system. Without a functional reference point, not being the system itself, the system cannot be completely described.
• Fundamentally, there is no problem to solve. What seems a problem arises from the fact that the previous point is actually true. Not realizing/accepting that a relative perspective is required for any observation, that causes problems. Not realizing/accepting that if a singularity, an initial state of the universe cannot be understood in relative/observational terms, that causes problems.
• Saying one solution is of a “toy” problem, while other solutions are of “real” problems is relevant if, and only if, you know exactly what discriminates one from the other. What if the “real” problems all have relative solutions, and the “toy” problem has but one absolute solution? What if the “Toy” is always one and the same, while “reality” is never the same?
• What if “ignoring” relative aspects is not bad at all in studying a possibly absolute aspect? In fact, how could it otherwise be possible to understand 1 absoulte truth if you didn’t eliminate relative variables. What Chaitin calls “ignorance” is instead the controlling of variables in a certain thought experiment.

This is what I’d like to figure out:

Assume a quantum of action as such Assume it can be imagined as the most fundamental form of sphere Assume this spherical quantum of action has the intrinsic quality of rotation Let this quantum of rotational action be the one and only force there is.

Assume the geometry of sphere to be a momentary state Assume that, at this particular moment, the quantum of action is, at least theoretically, in perfect equilibrium, similar to a Planckian Grey Body average. Assume a physical body in perfect equilibrium to be energetically dead, and therefore impossible to detect/measure. Ergo, a grey body as such cannot be dimensioned and is thus immesurable and nondimensional. Define this sphere moment as the moment of 0 measurable quantity as well as 0 measurable quality. Let this particular moment be the true and factual number 0. That is, the grey body as such is the fact of Something, but impossible to detect/measure as a certain, empirical fact definable as being a particular object (wave, particle, quark, gluon, spinor, foam, tensor etc). It is not Nothing, but it is not a Thing. It is, in relation to externals, Something empirically invisible. We can perhaps term it “Background” or “Grid” or “Hidden Variable”.

Let the force of rotation, which is the fundamental action and thus not caused by some other action, cause itself to change its geometry. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its axis of rotation being compressed, and thus to decrease in “length” from the momentary value of 0. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its equator, perpendicular to its axis, being extended, and thus to increase in circumference from the momentary value of 0. Imagine the gray, spherical equilibrium, by means of its own rotational force/action, to gradually reform itself to increasingly flatter ellipsoid, and to do so up to the critical instance when axis is maximally compressed and circumference is maximally extended. Assume the value of vertical compression to be gravitational potential as “magnetism”. Assume the value of horizontal extension to be kinetic energy as “electricity/charge”. Define this disc moment as the moment of 1 measurable quantity as well as 2 measurable qualities. Assume these 2 qualities of compression/extension corresponds to the concepts of time/space as well as position/velocity.
Let the moment of maximum extension/compression equal the concept of zero entropy, as the opposite moment of perfect equilibrium. Imagine the opposite to a mathematical 0 is the 1 quantity of +1-1 qualities. Imagine grey randomness reforming itself to black/white order of duality. Imagine equilibrium enforcing itself to become zero entropy. Imagine force to cause energy, in and of itself. Imagine rotation to cause electromagnetism.

So, can such a Something be figured out mathematically? I don’t know. It seems we need to reconsider the ontology of numbers, and most of all the numbers 0 and 1. I suspect these symbolic representations of physical reality must be properly physicalized. Perhaps our quest for the math of reality must be complemented with a quest for the physics of math?

I suggest the number 0 represents a symmetric equilibrium in the shape of sphere. Being equilibrium, it cannot be interacted with. It neither reflects, nor does it absorb. It is not likely to transmit either. I suspect that any thing contacting the 0 sphere becomes it, instantly. I suggest that, enforced by rotation, the 0 sphere generates a gradual emergence of quantity, a continuous increase of empirical reality in the shape of “space”. That is, the equatorial bulge, which gradually becomes the perimeter of a flat disc, is the very essence of empirical reality as it emerges, seemingly “out of nothing”. That “nothing” is nothing but its momentary state and trait of spherical equilibrium. This continuous increase of somethings horizontal perimeter is the emergence of an increasingly wider and flatter quantity of 1. This variable quantity of the (empirical) 1 comes with a proportional increase of two seemingly opposite qualities, because just as the perimeter charge is tensed out by force of rotation, so is the axis of rotation compressed. So in this scenario, magnetism is gravitational potential which increases in the exact amount that kinetic charge increases. Thus, electromagnetism is not a fundamental force, but an inevitable effect caused by the fundamental force of rotation. Not being a mathematician, far from it, I allow myself to be stupid enough to suggest; There are no natural numbers except for 0 and 1. 0 is a spherical equilibrium as a special case in a sequence/oscillation that is a constant flux. Most likely, the only true 0 as of a perfectly symmetric quantum of action is only possible/factual at a universal state of singularity, and only so at a particular instance and not as a stable state. Similar to the clock on the wall never “being” 0 or 12 (or any other number of times), but just an empirical manifestation of certain moments. The actual ticking of “time” is probably related to the instances of phase inversions, so reality might “tick” at each “time” the extension of “space” reaches its maximum length/circumference. If so, time increases as space increases, and it does so in continuous fashion. So if we choose to set time 0 along the equator of spherical equilibrium, then increase of time equals increase of space as the equator is tensed out by rotational force. Then time stops at the moment our quantum of action is maximally extended horizontally as well as maximally compressed vertically. Then the poles (both ends of axis) goes “Tick”, and gravitational potential is released bidirectionally. As the unit is thus relaxed, the amount of energy built up from projection of space/horizon will be conjected back towards 0. This is the phase of propotional reversal of spacetime. I suspect the clock of reality says very little of this, because this is how it is quantized as to (almost) disappear. The fully conjected unit is at its lowest energy state and will be hard to even detect. I think this might be what we think of as “Neutrinos”. They don’t travel at all. They are already everywhere. Flickering moments, close to equilibrium.

So how can this explain, for instance, the notion of complexity? Well, imagine a universal singularity to be a definite limit to what is otherwise a true Nothing-ness. Apart from Nothing-ness, there is only the universal singularity. This singularity, as pictured above, is never a stable state. Reason is fundamental force of rotation and how that enforces the singularity/quantum to reform spherical equilibrium into a 2D disc of electro/magnetism and back to spherical equilibrium. This sequence is likely to render the singularity a wobbling instability which, after certain moments/times of phase inversions, causes the unit to break in 2. NOTE: This is not 2 as we conventionally treat the quantity of 2. Keep in mind that before the breaking of unit into units, the notion of 1 is not applicable. To define singularity as the quantity 1, we must have a reference quantity that is not-1, e.g 0, .5, 2 etc. There is no such reference external to a universal singularity. It is more truthlike to say “0<1>0” breaks into “0<1>0<1>0” or “0+1-1” breaks into “0+1-10+1-1”. The latter seems nonsensical of course, but then having 0 generate +1-1 all by itself also seems nonsensical.

From this moment and onwards, the motion of a unit (now a units) is dependent on context. This increases the complexity of the now system of units. Now what was absolute singularity can be understood as relative duality/parity. Let these 2 units break into 4, and there is increase in restrictions of motion. So while each following breaking of units allow for increased complexity in how they can oscillate in various patterns, it also means that each and every one unit is dependent on an increasing amount of other units. Since laws of conservation naturally follows the suggested scenario, we can also be sure no single unit can ever have escape velocity enough the separate from its origin. This is good, because it keeps reality in place and makes the infamous heat-death impossible. It allows for a lot of ideas that basically makes sense of what seems a mystery. Local? Yes! Nonlocal? Yes! Empirical? Yes! Hidden? Yes! Irreversible? Yes! Reversible? Yes!

Simple as it seems, how could we entertain our intellectual desire for complex problems to solve? You know, intelligence can never accept what might be objectively simple and absolute. Intelligence generates questions, not answers. Answers are for religion, right? So being a schmuck with numbers and equations, I offer anyone interested to flesh out in detail the numbers corresponding to one single sequence of the imagined motion of singularity. How to do it is up to anyone’s preference. I can only suggest some crude pointers from my layman’s perspective.

Here’s an example to play around with. This complex image is not following the agreed upon rules of course. It assumes a base value that, instead of an infinitely small point, is regarded as an actual point/force/quanta which is irreducilble and thus the physical limit of spatial size. It assumes reality can disappear as “space”, not because of size but as an effect of geometry. That is, if reality at hand is a perfect sphere, then it is in a state of equilibrium, and if so it is undetectable. No matter its assumed size or the nature of measuring device, a state of equilibrium does not interact with external context because it is energetically dead. Another way is to say; a sphere cannot be detected “in” empirical space because it has no spatial extension. Only as force of rotation causes the equator – Its Own Equator – to bulge, and the axis – Its Own Axis – to compress does the unit have the property of spatial extension. Nota bene; with the quality of horizontal extension (space) comes, perpendicular to the equatorial horizon, an equal amount of axial compression (times).
I didn’t add the following phase of conjection because it’s the same but in reverse. Just let the disc rotate as before and the compression at center will now increase vertical values bidirectionally from -.5-.5 to 00, and by that horizontal values uniformly from +.25+.25+.25+.25 to 0000.
To avoid a static oscillation and allow for the unit to break, we must add knowledge of hydrodynamics and how the inevitable wobble/instability of a rotating point of gas/liquid plays out. That’s way beyond me, but other will know for sure. I know they do because there are tons of papers about it.
That will probably show the cause of positive and negative curvature of space. My assumption is that projective space is positive as the sphere is flattened out, and that conjective space is negative as the gravitational potential at the axis is released.
Just feeding the crazy minds here.
Don’t believe a word of it.
You want reality as it really is?
Practice mindfulness, relentlessly, and you will eventually learn that there was nothing hidden ever. When reality hides, it does so by being Everything LOL…..

Have a wonderful weekend!

EDIT/ADD-IT: When saying the system needs a functional reference point in order to describe itself, I am not saying there actually is such a reference point. There is not. Not in the universe as described here. My image denies the existence of separation as well as of many universes. There is One Universe and This is It.
Never the less, human mind function seems able to describe reality to a very large extent. In fact, all the way from the current state of affairs and back to the so called Planck Epoch, but beyond that it seems unable to “get it”. Religion solves that by saying “God”, while the scientific solution is to say “There will forever be new questions to deal with”. Same same but opposite. None carries explanatory power.
The cool thing with human mind is the ability to operate/compute/respond as if it was indeed a functional reference point. It reasons and acts as if there was a “me” that “had” a mind of my own, able to look at reality. This as if- perspective is what makes intelligence possible. Without it, there is just the One Reality thinking, knowing, questioning, experiencing and ignoring all by itself. These internal activities/events occur in the momentary forms of “humans” and “brains”. But there is only One which has “humans” and “brains”, and that is the One Reality. It has multiples of itself, and the many combine in various patterns with various functions.
So singularity is a point without reference, while duality/parity is a point referring to itself in the form of another point. Complexity is a point referring to a multitude of itself in the form of numerous points. No matter how many billions of points made, the broken singularity is bound to self-reference. Only in the special case of being non-relative (call it Initial/Final state if you will), is the universe non-referential and absolute.
So to say, as I previously did, that there is no reference point (meaning a human observer) to describe reality is also not true. The truth is rather this; there is nothing but reference points. Any instance/unit of existence is defined in reference to all the others. To believe the aggregates of points/quanta called “humans” are somehow able to stand separate from this “quantum foam” and describe it “objectively” is nonsensical beyond belief. Of course we can’t do that!
But that is not to say it can’t be done. It is done. It’s happening right here, right now.
It’s just not me writing and you reading.
It is One Reality, able to write and read all of itself.

Cool isn’t it?

# A quick spin on spinors

“No one fully understands spinors. Their algebra is formally understood but their general significance is mysterious. In some sense they describe the “square root” of geometry and, just as understanding the square root of −1 took centuries, the same might be true of spinors.” From Graham Farmelo. The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius

The concept of spinors is obviously a tricky one to people in the fields of math and physics. So how can I be of any help? Well, I could copy paste some statements about spinors and see how that relates to my fundamental unit. Who knows, they might turn out to be the same ”thing”.

1. “…spinors appear when we imagine that instead of a single rotation, the coordinate system is gradually (continuously) rotated between some initial and final configuration.”
Good fit! My unit oscillates back and forth between two distinct configurations. Those are the momentary states when/where the unit experiences phase shifts to and from projection/extension and conjection/contraction. I usually describe this as the unit being what defines the coordinate system values of X,Y,Z.
2. “…sensitive to how the gradual rotation of the coordinates arrived there: they exhibit path-dependence
Good fit! The gradual change is of opposite directions vertically, but same direction horizontally. When vertical values decrease, horizontal values increase and vice versa. So one path is “positive” in the sense that the real plane extends, and the other is “negative” since the projected values are then conjected. This is probably the cause of quantization. It seems reasonable to assume path-dependence of value X as either increasing or decreasing.
3. Spinors actually exhibit a sign-reversal..” Perfect fit! As explained above, all values are likely to be reversed/inversed as the unit phase shifts at the relevant end configurations. The different topologies of rotation can perhaps be linked to the perpendicular relation of pole/axis to charge/radius. While my unit rotates around the vertical axis, that axis itself is assumed to be non-rotational. Instead, it is compressed when unit extends horizontally, and it elongates when compression is relaxed i.e. when axis function as a tensor. The topologies of circular and linear would be close to opposite as far as I can see. But if this is what is meant by “inequivalent gradual (continuous) rotations of the coordinate system”, I don’t know.
4. “..a spinor must belong to a representation of the double cover of the rotation group SO(n, R), or more generally of double cover of the generalized special orthogonal group SO+(p, q, R) on spaces with metric signature (p, q).”
You got me there Buddy! When reading “double cover” I think of chocolate wrapping, but that makes no sense in this context, so I Google it up. It turns out that what is covered is a continuous function p which is mapped from a topological space C to a topological space X. Seems like p-function translates “open” values to “definite” values. Then I stumble on the concept of “balls” in math, and things start to get really complicated. But however complex and diverse, the balls of math seems to resonate fairly well to my extreme simplicity. An Euclidean plane ball is a disc, an Euclidean 3-space ball is a volume bounded by a 2-D spherical shell and in 1-D space it is a line segment. All of those are present in my unit so, at a glance, it seems possible that this oscillator covers, if not everything so at least lots of it.All in all, I believe someone knowing Lorentz groups and spin matrices would have a field day with this unit/oscillator. And even with my limited understanding of formal physics and math, it seems possible that this is indeed what causes the effect of geometry. The problem might be that this unit cannot be detected empirically as a particular pure state. That requires a parity of such units, and such a pair is, at least in my mind, forced to counter each others values as to obey von Neumann entropy zero. That is, if A is forced by observation to express “contraction”, then B is forced by parity to express “extension”. That would seem an obvious function of parity, to have A and B oscillate in transverse directions. If both were to expand equally, I see them bounce off each other and separate. On the other hand, if they both contract, I fear they would condense to a single, coherent state. Opposition would be what keeps the oscillator oscillate, whether it is a single, pair or a triplet.

Science seems bound to appearances, and in my image, appearance is a quality of space extensions and that is only half the truth. How space hides itself will be revealed in time, but “time” is not an observable. Time is linear momentum which enables spatial extensions to be observed “at a distance”. Without axial compression/relaxation, Alice and Bob would be blind to system AB. A spinning surface is going nowhere but in circles, but a pole on the other hand…can be understood as an “arrow of time”.
In short: pole is messenger and surface is the message. In my image, the fundamental unit oscillates between both configurations. Not local, not nonlocal.

Does this make any sense? Most certainly not!

# Playing monopoly

Image a complex plane of XYZ and let Y be a value of potential extension, meaning exactly what it says “out of tension”, which is of equal magnitude on both sides of Y=0.
Apply a limit of real space at 1/4 on both sides of X,Z=0 and consider the inside of those 1/4 as a nonlocal wormhole.
Set the value of Y at .12 on both ends as +.12 and -.12.
Let all of Y be a nonlocal, vertical tensor which we might call “polarity”. Do not assign any quantity of “length” to it. It is just potential length, not real length as “space”.
The total value of Y potential is then .12, .12, .03, .03 = .30. If we make the mistake of assuming the negative values being “less than zero”, then the total value of Y is of course 0.
Now think of this .30 as the value which will translate to a 2D-surface extension around Y axis.
The area of that surface would be .54772255 to the power of 2. Let those 2 powers be the +.12+.03 = +.15 and -.12-.03= -.15.
So what is the radius and the circumference of such a surface based on Y=.3?
If we go easy on the fractions, consider this unit to be very close to a unit, and not fractions of a unity, we get radius .4 and circumference 2.6.
Now let’s keep the unit united so that we don’t break it just by convention. If we add the radius and circumference values into the one value of the one potential, we get .4+2.6 = 3.
Aint’t that neat?

We have just found ourselves a way to make 3 out of 1.
Time translated to space.

If we do not correct for the space limit at 1/4, we might believe that reality can be fully described as 4/4. That the extensions is all there is and that reality is 1 whole detectable and “real” image.
It is not so.

The 1 dimension of “time” is on the imaginary Y-axis, and there the center of rotation is not rotation itself, or we would assign another center around which it rotated. The thing with the Y-axis is that it does not rotate at all. It is vertical/linear tension/stretching, and since it does not rotate, it has no currency to it. It is a monopole, residing in one single and nonlocal “potential” place. It is spaced out only when extending as a 2D-surface. It is a unity of two phases/faces.

The dimensionality/measurability of reality is 1 time extended by tension into 3 space.
Reality is not space and time. It is the oscillations of discrete unities which are the cause of both.
Non-communicating when extended as discrete surfaces.
Entangeled when fully polarized.
Quantization is when they pass the .03 limit of rotation and “hides” in the linear network of entangeled relations. We cannot detect the communication itself, only the many speakers.

The messengers is the message.
The actors is the action.

Forget the math. I just pretend to know anything about it. It is all wrong.
If you start with 2 opposites, you have 2 halves in one initial state, right?
If you break the 1, you have +.5-.5 and +.5-.5, right?
So by this break, you will get a parity of +1-1, right?
That’s a transverse wave….believe it or not.
2 discrete surfaces…quantized…appearing at crest, and then…poof, gone.
And again….twisting in a helical pattern when their values are measured.
So what is 1 anyway?

Every thing in empirical reality begins at .03 or at 1/4 if you wich, or .03×4= .12 or .12+.03= .15.
Quarternions I guess…
The many ways of expressing and calculation this reality comes from not knowing what it is.
Our tools of investigation are based on the detectable 3/4. We use them to make the 1/4 be the same as the 3/4, and we come up .03 short of the solution. So we generate multiples of solutions, and all fall in the same spot. They seem to superimpose and stack infinitely, without raising our understanding at all.

Reality as we know it is not fractions of one thing. It is an ocean of numerous ones which are parity and triplets of a two-face duality, united in one single Eigenstate. An Eigenstate which broke itself into an Unsererstate. No reference broken into self-reference.
Math as we have it cannot count to this peculiar 1. It believes 1 to be the basic integer, generating the others. It is not. There is no basic integer, because the fundamental base is half empty of quantity.
That empty half holds the Quality of Mechanics, and quality cannot be detected itself. Only that which express a quantity of the quality can be measured.
Surface is the quantity of tension, and as tension increase, surface decrease.
The pole elongates its potential value while decreasing its real value of space extension.
Decreasing value of real space is equal to time reversal.
But there exists no “time” as we know it. That’s just a relative measure of change.
Universal time is to be found among the internal affairs of the singularity. It is of how pole translates to surface and vice versa.

If we stop extending the Y-axis, as if it represented spatial extension, we might progress a bit faster. The Y-axis never leaves the real plane. The spike of the Dirac equation is the zero entropy oscillation which is half lost beyond the limit at .03, or where ever you choose to set that limit. The spike imagined to push the Y+ to infinity is in, or outside…or perhaps inside, the extension of the real plane. It is what generates all the real values. The infinity of it is that it is a fundamental pulse that never stops. As momentum is conserved, once it takes of, it cannot be exhausted or die a fictional “heat death”. Such nonsense defies all sensible logic.

Where was I?
Oh, playing momopoly I was.
Well then, I just won.

# The content of mathematics

I have recently had an interesting conversation about the usefulness of mathematics in trying to describe the fundamentals of reality. I have found that this question have had great minds occupied for ages. One of my favourite minds is that of Kurt Gödel, so I had a quick look at his take on this issue. I was delighted to find that he shared a vital aspect of my position that mathematics are very real and not to be mistaken as being “just abstractions” and “just conventions”. Math may be both conventional and abstract, but it is not “just” that, as if it was a “lesser” version of the real reality of concrete physics.

The reason I consider mathematics as being closely corresponding to the physical reality is a simple one; human minds are what generate that which we call “mathematics”, and since human minds are themselves generated by physically real events, there has to be this correspondence. In other words, assuming an observation is of reality, and the observer also being a reality, then it follows that the response of the observer to this observation, for example a mathematical formulation, is also of reality.
Bottom line – Everything in reality is equally real, including that which we sometimes define as “abstract”. Only superficially is math unrelated to that which it is believed to describe. On a fundamental level, it is by neccesity corresponding to exactly that, but inderectly so, via the human correspondence. The bridge between the object observed and the math of the object is the human mind. And only ignorance of what a human mind is can lead us to believe there is a true disconnection between physical reality and the math we generate to describe it. That is not Gödel’s reason for defending the real content of math, but we arrive att the same conclusion. Not only does Gödel say math is valid in this sense, but he goes further to say math don’t neccesarily need empirical correspondence to be true in its own right.
The last statement is very important and worthy of consideration. It opens the door to mathematics that can probe reality deeper, or from a different perspective, than empirical observation is able to do. If that is so, we should be aware of which kind of math is used and what defines an empirical math from an un-empirical math.
As will argue further, we must learn what makes some aspects of reality real in an empirical sense, and what aspects might be defined as inherently un-empirical. This goes down to the nature of mind and its limit of awareness. To be empirical, it is required that objects/observables comes into minds awareness. If not, we simply don’t know them. This is not to say they don’t affect us. That would be a mistake, becuse most of what affects us is out of our awareness. But it means that we cannot build a theory about it, because a theory must be of something explicitly defined or we have knowledge without knowing what it is that we know. Creative perhaps, but not so uselful.

## A Philosophical Argument About the Content of Mathematics

The bold extraction of philosophical observations from mathematical facts—and, of course, the converse—was Gödel’s modus operandi and professional trademark. We present below an argument of this type, from draft V of Gödel’s draft manuscript, “Is Mathematics a Syntax of Language?” though it also appears in the Gibbs lecture.

The argument uses the Second Incompleteness Theorem[1] to refute the view that mathematics is devoid of content. Gödel referred to this as the “syntactical view,” and identified it with Carnap. Gödel defined the syntactical view in the Gibbs lecture as follows:

The essence of this view is that there is no such thing as a mathematical fact, that the truth of propositions which we believe express mathematical facts only means that (due to the rather complicated rules which define the meaning of propositions, that is, which determine under what circumstances a proposition is true) an idle running of language occurs in these propositions, in that the said rules make them true no matter what the facts are. Such propositions can rightly be called void of content. (Gödel 1995, p. 319).

Under this view, according to Gödel:

…the meaning of the terms (that is, the concepts they denote) is asserted to be man-made and consisting merely in semantical conventions. (Gödel 1995, p. 320)

A number of arguments are adduced in the Gibb’s lecture against the syntactical view. Continuing the last quote but one, Gödel gives the main argument against it:

Now it is actually possible to build up a language in which mathematical propositions are void of content in this sense. The only trouble is 1. that one has to use the very same mathematical facts (or equally complicated other mathematical facts) in order to show they don’t exist.

The mathematical fact Gödel is referring to is the requirement that the system be consistent. But consistency will never be intrinsic to the system; it must always be imported “from the outside,” so to speak, as follows from the Second Incompleteness Theorem, which states that consistency is not provable from within any system adequate to formalize mathematics.

The paper “Is Mathematics a Syntax of Language?” paper is an extended elaboration of just this point. It is more specific, both as to the characterization of the syntactic view and as to its refutation.

In version V of it, Gödel identifies the syntactical view with three assertions. First, mathematical intuition can be replaced by conventions about the use of symbols and their application. Second, “there do not exist any mathematical objects or facts,” and therefore mathematical propositions are void of content. And third, the syntactical conception defined by these two assertions is compatible with strict empiricism.

As to the first assertion there is a weak sense in which Gödel agrees with it, insofar as he notes that is possible to arrive at the same sentences either by the application of certain rules, or by applying mathematical intuition. He then observes that it would be “folly” to expect of any perfectly arbitrary system set up in this way, that “if these rules are applied to verified laws of nature (e.g., the primitive laws of elasticity theory) one will obtain empirically correct propositions (e.g., about the carrying power of a bridge)…” He terms this property of the rules in question “admissibility” and observes that admissibility entails consistency. But now the situation has become problematic:

But now it turns out that for proving the consistency of mathematics an intuition of the same power is needed as for deducing the truth of the mathematical axioms, at least in some interpretation. In particular the abstract mathematical concepts, such as “infinite set,” “function,” etc., cannot be proved consistent without again using abstract concepts, i.e., such as are not merely ascertainable properties or relations of finite combinations of symbols. So, while it was the primary purpose of the syntactical conception to justify the use of these problematic concepts by interpreting them syntactically, it turns out that quite on the contrary, abstract concepts are necessary in order to justify the syntactical rules (as admissible or consistent)…the fact is that, in whatever manner syntactical rules are formulated, the power and usefulness of the mathematics resulting is proportional to the power of the mathematical intuition necessary for their proof of admissibility. This phenomenon might be called “the non-eliminability of the content of mathematics by the syntactical interpretation.”

Gödel makes two further observations: first, one can avoid the above difficulty by founding consistency on empirical induction. This is not a solution he advocates here, though as time passed, he would now and then note the usefulness of inductive methods in a particular context. His second observation is that empirical applicability is not needed; it is clearly unrelated to the weaker question of the consistency of the rules.