I'm going to go out on a limb here for a second.

IF, and that's a big if, the algebraic physics theory is correct (whatever
that means in this context), time in my discussion of transition dimensions,
which is something I wrote in my notebook about dimensions that doesn't need
to correlate to "your" perceived reality or paradigm within a co-created
reality, are far too abstract to simply say something about cause and
effect, prior and subsequent, nor does it account for time in the
Einsteinian sense at all.

Despite the physical correlational significance of "algebraic physics," I
believe, like perhaps Cantor did when he was rhetorically assaulted by
people like Dedekind who, in my understanding, rejected his ideas about the
infinite in general which are, today, widely accepted (but not
universally).  Cantor's response, again from my understanding, was that to
"defend" his work he did these things:
1. stop seeking -validation- from the "powers that be" of the time, the
reigning paradigm champions like Bohr and Everett were later.
2. state something to the effect: -if- the theory, such as infinite ordinals
or algebraic physics, is -internally- consistent, that makes it a valid
mathematical theory.

I do not make statements in my theory that suggest there is an answer to any
physics question in my paper (the current version is 00-02-00), --except--
that I conjecture something to that effect, after removing the conjecture
about the CRH which, evidently, was a valid conjecture to settle as Bruno is
attempting to demonstrate, quite well I might add, in my humble opinion,
that it need not be a conjecture.  So the few other conjectures remain and I
do think that in settling them, a deeper understanding of at least what I'm
discussing in my algebraic physics paper will be obtained, if not about the
universe at large.

The universe in my paper is meant to be the actual universe in conjectures 4
and 5 on page 3 of the 4 page document (if memory serves).  This is resting
severely, if you will, upon the MUH which is not falsifiable in a scientific
sense, is it?  Is the MUH a science hypothesis or a mathematical one?  I
think the MUH is a -philosophical- hypothesis, actually.

To continue with my point, time, or the transition dimensions, are
compatible slightly with Einstein's view of time but, for the most part, in
my paradigm (and I honestly don't wish to trap anyone in my paradigm as this
paper is supposed to be free-ing and not meant to elicit conviction that it
is correct even by me, except conjectures are meant to be settled and I
can't say whether I believe they are true or false I just want to say
'maybe' which is the worst possible answer to a yes/no question in terms of
the frustration in the lack of understanding there), time is too abstract to
just say there is a continuous flow of consciousness to and from an
abstract, unfleshed world, such as mathematics or Platonic Form Worlds (I
call parallels wurldes, actually), and a concrete wurlde such as ours.

However, I do suspect and perceive there to be a connection, a deep one,
between the abstract and concrete.  The multiverse in Physics would seem to
be a concrete wurlde (level 1 to 3 multiverse to use Tegmark's paradigm)
while my algebraic physics is meant to be discussion about the level 4
wurldes.  I am attempting to go through what is "up" with level 4
multiverses by first ascertaining what exactly the universe is.  If I am
barking anywhere near the right tree, I feel this "discovery" -is- (or would
be, to use time as a crutch for discussion as, in some sense, all events
occur simultaneously, will occur, and have occurred as though all on one
point in the "flatland" sense) about as rudimentary to humanity in one
millennium as negative numbers are to -us- now.

Especially if algebraic physics is just balderdash.  I'm guessing no one
would wager with me in that I bet many rank-and-file physicists will loathe
my theory because, for one thing, if the true answer to their questions on
TOE's are not to be found in science, then they would never have found out
what "the universe" is (see page 3 of my 00-02-00 "algebraic physics"
article) with a telescope, atom smasher, or their eyes.  No equipment beyond
imagination could, imho, have found this and that might be why it is
incorrect, if it is.

If not loathe, then be exceptionally reluctant to study.

Any takers on this wager?

;)

Cheers
Brian

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to