This conversation is closed.

## 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.

**Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.**

**Showing single comment thread.
View the full conversation.**

## William Kuch

In my view these would be considered equivalent processes. Equivalent in the same sense that two completely different frames of reference can be regarded as being equivalent in relativity.

I have several worked examples which illustrate why we can say that random and non-random processes can be regarded as being equivalent. This applies to physical as well as mathematical processes.

The best way to explain these examples is with a short video. I have two videos on YouTube and I will try to link to them here:

The first video should play automatically at this link. It is called "Two Physicists Walk Into A Bar"

http://www.youtube.com/user/HeliumXenonKrypton?feature=mhee

The second video concerns the Sierpinski Triangle, a very famous fractal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM95mNEQsY0&list=UUpxczJY6eD7lNBzfOATQLyg&index=3&feature=plcp

This general approach is a valid application and extension of the methods of Relativity. Because it is so closely related to randomness, it should be clear that it provides a way to connect General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

## Gail . 50+

## William Kuch

## Gail . 50+