Reality and math. short comment
dean sinclair
We consider mathematics as a model for reality. Perhaps it would be
worth while to consiee4 how certain mathematical definitions fit as we
look at the physical world.
First, let us look at the concept of Zero, usually considered as the
symbol of nothingness. However, is this true? Zero is the starting
point for counting, the starting point for any journey, the crossing
for the Cartesian axes of most conventional graphs. It might be
better to say that the symbol, “Zero,” is actually the symbol for the
fact of existence. In the real world, the starting “point” may be of
any size, any shape. Zero, then. is not without existence, without
dimension, rather it is the symbol of the very first dimension, the
Dimension of Existence.
What then of the number, “One? “ That’s simple, its the ‘counting
number.” However, isn’t it a lot more than that? It is the symbol of
wholeness. it represents a whole starting point, a whole line, which
actually has to be made up of two starting points, a whole surtace,
made up of at least three starting points, etc. Hence the number one
may represent many things. If we atttach a sign to the number,
implying a motion, then +l, represents the motion of a whole starting
unit one unit to the right, or possibly up, or forward. We say that
one times one times one equals one, but we always assume that there is
a positive value atttached to the one, so if the first one represents
a motion of one space to the right, the next one reprensents the
motion of the first “one” upward, and the third one represents the
motion of the second generated one a unit forward. Therefore, if we
attach the positive notation to “one” which, by convention we do, one
times one times one actually means one cube generated to the right,
above and forward from the origin of a set of axes by a set of
motions whch are actualy counter clockwise,
Looking at “One” as the symbol of wholeness has many uses. One
interesting one arises is one looks, for instance, at figuring a
maximum frequency for our particular Universe. The equation for
the movement of Energy by electromagnet radiation is E=hu, where “h”
is Planck’s constant and “u” is cycles per some unit of time. If we
place E equal to one Energy unit in any set of units, the maximum
frequency, expressed in that set of units, will be seen to be “1/h”
. This presumably would be the “high frequency cut off” for
communication.”
At the other end of the scale is the symbol of “Infinity. the Number
Beyond All Numbers.” For mathematicians this is a perfectly good
definiion; but in the real world we have to use more rational
definitions. Does it really make sense to say that we can measure mass
of something moving with relation to us up to a velocity as near the
speed of light as we care to but say that the mass will become
“Infiinte, meaning “without limit” at the speed of light? Is the
darkness just beyond the flashlight beam a void? Couldn’t that
darkness be considered an Infinity? We can’t see into it. In the
practical world we probably should conisder the concept of “Infinity”
as representing simply the point just beyond the last point that we
can measure with the instruments at hand, the number beyond where we
stopped countig, for whatever reason.