TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

To revolutionize both math and physics by the grassroots popularization of a new quantitative tool which is introduced below.

We start with the Law of the Excluded Middle. Consider it's complement and call this new law the Law of the Exclusive Middle. Let these two laws be equivalent. You now have something similar to Fuzzy Math, but it is very different. These two laws are connected by equivalence which is very different than Fuzzy Math.

Next consider Descartes "I think therefore I am". We reverse engineer this into a statement which reflects our foundation (above), to derive "Maybe I think therefore maybe I am". We keep both of these statements and set them as equivalent.

We then proceed to all of the standard tools of mathematics which are used for the analytic quantification of magnitudes. In math, things are said to exist. In our new system things are regarded as "maybe existing". We keep both of these tools and regard them as being equivalent. We will call one of them Mathematics, and the other should be called something like Conjectural Modeling to reflect that it is based entirely on absolute indeterminacy.

We now have a quantitative tool which is split down the middle, essentially a kind of mirror image. On one side, absolute determinacy. On the other side, absolute indeterminacy. Both sides held together by equivalence.

We now have a tool which is capable of addressing both the equivalence inherent to relativity, and the indeterminacy which is inherent to Quantum Mechanics.

We can write correct and accurate quantitative models using either system. In fact, for every possible question there should be two solutions. One based on determinacy, and the other based on randomness. These two answers are equivalent. As an example, whether I know with absolute certainty that I have 10 dollars, this is quantitatively identical to not knowing but "expecting" that I have 10 dollars where 10 is an expected value instead of a value known with absolute certainty.

I have many examples and a lot of math to reinforce these views. I am convinced that this solution is extremely important.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 29 2012: "I think, therefore I am" can be expressed as Pi (I think = diameter, and I am = circumference). "I" (or Pi) is the relationship of your reality to your "perceived" identity just as Pi is the relationship of a circle to its diameter.

    Apply this concept to a sphere with infinite tangent points and you can then say, I think this, therefore that is the most probable consequence of my actions. That would be a valuable tool. It's called "critical thinking", and most people avoid it like the plague.

    I "know" that I have $10.00 is not equivalent to I "expect" (have faith) that I have $10.00. Knowledge and faith are two different things.

    You can have faith that something that violates scientifically known principles is true, but that does not make it true nor will all the thinking in the world make it true. You can have faith in something that you do not know if it does not violate inviolate principles, and you can manifest it into being.

    But no mater how many ways you frame the debate, and no matter how many identities you establish to do so, faith will never equal knowledge. They are two entirely different concepts. Faith = absence of knowledge. So in this context, all faith based ideas would be expressed as negatives in your mathematical construct.
    • Sep 29 2012: If you are a mathmatician, logician or physicist I can change your mind with an example as follows.

      Consider two universes. Call them U1 and U2. In U1 things either exist, or they do not. In U2 everything is partially existent, and we say that things "might exist" instead of saying that they "do exist". Let U1 and U2 be considered equivalent, just like in relativity.

      Now we go out and apply our theory. We see a tree. An observer claims that he is certain that it exists and gives it's existence a truth value = 1. A second observer is never sure of anything, ever, but the existence of tree is pretty convincing and he assigns it's existence a truth value of .999... .

      Since .999... = 1, precisely, it is clear that in terms of quantifying these truth values that these two situations are indeed equivalent. The same thing would hold for nonexistent objects.

      What I am saying is that whether something is certain or uncertain, that this "certainty / uncertainty" is a quality which we ascribe to things. Clearly these two qualities are quite opposite each other. However, they also have a quantitative aspect and that these quantities can be equivalent.

      If I exist with truth value = 1, then I exist with absolute certainty. There is no question about it.

      But if I say that I "might" exist, I am making a statement which is based on uncertainty. Consider that this is expressed as a potential, and that in this case the truth value = .999...

      Clearly, .999... = 1 and the only difference is whether we are certain or uncertain. Quantitatively, these two models are equivalent.

      Random and nonrandom are equivalent.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2012: You begin suggesting the split universe theory, then you move away from it.

        In U1, things either exist or do not exist, and in U2, you are dealing with probabilities, which are real things, whether or not they can be seen by you who are here and now. What exists in U2, and will become part of U1, is relative to your trajectory and velocity. Some probabilities are therefore more probable than others.

        But when you move to say that .999....=1, you are mistaken. .999... = .999... and 1=1.

        .999 = 1.000 minus .001, thus PROVING that 1 =/= .999. It only approximates it. Approximations are not equalities.

        I hear you struggling with the mathematical nature of reality, but I don't think that it can be explained using your model.

        Quantum physics already recognizes your U2, but it's not just one universe. They are very close to announcing that there is sufficient agreement for declaring that we live in a multiverse that relative to us, is filled with probabilities waiting to be realized relative to your position as observer. (Your frame of reference).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.