So, from the infinite chaos of mathematics we converge upon Euler’s Identity. From the infinite chaos of space-time we converge upon the sun/moon coincidence.

Or are we emerging from Euler’s identity and the Sun/Moon coincidence into the chaos of mathematics as space/time as mathematics?

November 7th, 2015 § Comments Off on The Sun and the Moon § permalink

Why are the discs of the sun and the moon, as seen from the earth, so remarkably congruent?

Explain this, and shake the world.

I believe there IS an explanation beyond “coincidence” to be had, and also that we have all the data and observations we need to do the job.

Read David Deutch’s books “The Fabric of Reality” and “The Beginning of Infinity”. Read Julian Barber’s “The End of Time”. Read Max Tegmark’s “Our Mathematical Universe”.

Just in case I haven’t published this little tidbit yet…(UPDATE 3.11.10 – I guess I have).

In an email to a real certified Physicist today, I included the glyph:

…can we profitably think of prime numbers as a metaphor for coexisting yet not interpenetrating physical theories, unified by their common divisor “1”?

The import being that if Quantum Mechanics was like 2 and General Relativity was like 3 then both theories are divisible by 1 (God, Consciousness, Perception, Observation) yet do not interpenetrate. Therefore a new theory of Quantum Gravity would be unnecessary to unify Physics. Physics would be unified in the Unitary dimension of God, Consciousness, Perception, Observation.

Enough said.

(UPDATE 2.5.11) In the Unitary dimension of Number.

(I wrote the following screed a month ago and didn’t publish it. Perhaps I thought it over-the-top, angry, bitter – somehow unworthy of theWheel. And yet, what more appropriate tone can one adopt? This one may come back to bite me, but it’s real today.)

OK. I’m calling bullshit. Physics. “String Theory” Enough is enough.

Calling all string theorists. Do you have any evidence for your theory? Any repeatable testable observations? Anything at all? Looks like religion to me. Fancy math. I can’t do your fancy string theory math – or more to the point, until there is any repeatable testable experimental evidence, I see no point in learning esoteric notations that so far as I can tell refer to nothing. Except maybe tenure.

I am not an illiterate. I can read an orchestral score, but I assure you I would never have bothered to learn without first hearing repeatable testable renditions of scores. Fancy graphics can embody great art and beauty. They can also serve as smoke screens.

Driving around Ann Arbor doing my day-job, moments of clarity visit me. I write them down on index cards – the little spiral bound 4×6 ones. Most of the cards are about music and songs. Some politics.

The other day I was thinking about Nature (not Physics) and wrote down, not for the first time, my take on the now nearly century long effort to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

The title of my card was “Why Physics Will Not Be Unified”. It read:

– Physics is not fundamental. The “physical” is an emergent phenomena.

– “Number” is fundamental. “Consciousness” is fundamental.

– All possible mathematical constructs coexist physically as best they can. THEY NEED NOT INTERPENETRATE!!!

(On the flip side of the card I wrote:)

Like Prime Numbers on a number line, all are divisible by one, but not each other.

(Unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as “Physics”) is like wanting to find a commonality between 19 and 31, but not being willing to concede that “1” is real.

I could expand upon this, but the essence of the argument might get lost in all the words. I think I’m right.