This is a low for you Xei.
It makes no sense in physical terms, it is just strings of symbols, but he knows it to be true regardless.
Firstly, if you have no sensory experience, then you cannot build up axioms, unless you argue that there is a biological understand, for example animals have concepts of numbers so they know if they are out matched.
Lastly, it is possible to deduce relativity from thought, however without experimental evidence then you will not have any good reason for believing it is correct.
We are all fabulous box physicists. Time and space are tangible, but there are other variables which we are completely blind to. In total these explain the questions of existence flawlessly.
Well, space and time are not really tangible, they can be expressed as mathematical equations. We can't experience four dimensions, and entropy forces us to experience time only one way. Xei, please make yourself less vague.
They must, for if they did not we would not logically have come to be; reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps the answer will not be tangible to us... but surely we can shunt symbols?
Circular reasoning is bad i.e. it is true, because it is true. A good example is time, according a article of newscientist if there was no time then reality could still exist. Also, I heard that organism or life could arise if you took away gravity.
Also, I don't know what you mean shunt the symbols. If you're talking about making mathematical axioms and seeing what happens, then those axioms need to be from nature, as Hilbert's program was a failure.
We observe nature then see its patterns then turn it into mathematics. Ironically, its only the past century or so that this has turned around, for the worse.
Fabulous box physicist can also solve the differential equations of general relativity in his head with ease. He shunts the symbols and mentally obtains the equations that describe whatever spacetime object he is wondering about.
Are you drunk Xei?
Here is a unit moment cube:
(1 0 0 0) (0 1 0 0) (0 0 1 0) (0 0 0 1)
Doesn't look much like a cube, does it? It's just a string of symbols... barely even one dimensional you might say, let alone four.
That is wrong. Firstly, a cube is three dimensional not four.
(1,0,0)(0,1,0)(0,0,1)(0,0,0)(1,1,1)(1,1,0)(1,0,1)( 0,1,1)
Thats a cube. Also, even if you did change the top to three dimensions, it wouldn't be a cube. It would be a triange. All you have is a square in four dimensions, which is not a cube.
Saying that I'm pretty sure if there was a object like that, it would look like a triangle in three dimensions. What of the most confusing things I heard from mathematician is that objects can be like 2.3 dimensions.


Bookmarks