NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads...
From: Archimedes Plutonium (a_plutonium_at_iw.net)
Date: 08/07/04
- Next message: Douglas G. Kilday: "Re: New Scientist is at it again"
- Previous message: Felix Oscar: "what's the story of "Van" or "Von" in people's names"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads..."
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:42:55 -0500
Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:09:44 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)
>
>
> But in physics it would be a 3 dimensional matrix. So if I had electrons,
> protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, energy, time, momentum, position
> which counts to 9 then physics would be a 9X9X9 matrix which would be 729
> slots as Minimum Quantization.
That is an interesting insight in that language and chemistry and mathematics
numbers are 2 dimensional knowledge. But that physics as a body of knowledge
has to be 3 dimensional.
>
>
> So that if chemistry is at minimum quantization of 94 and language at 30
> and numbers at 15 and physics at 729.
>
> And if all or part of the above is true then we have little hope of ever
> getting to the heart of physics because our language is 30 slots trying to
> peer into something of 729 slots.
>
> P.S. I have never understood what Leibniz was doing when he pursued his
> monads. I wonder if Leibniz monads were sort of a anti-Godel
> undecidability. And if Leibniz monads were counter to Godel Undecidability
> whether those monads had anything to do with the idea that language has
> only 30 portals into some universal space that has 729 levels.
Yes, it was wise of me to delve and dive into this subject because Godel
theorems of Undecideability of the 20th century were simply fake and false
ideas. They were derived from the flawed concept that Natural Numbers were
Finite Integers. If you assume that Natural Numbers are finite-integers then
you can cook up a falsehood that Godel did with Undecideability. Worse yet,
you can cook up falsehood of Cantor Uncountability and a fallout of Cantor
infinities.
But, when you begin mathematics with the truth, that Natural Numbers like the
Reals have each and every number possess a component of infinity and where the
NaturalNumbers are the InfiniteIntegers, not the FiniteIntegers. Where the
FiniteIntegers are a bag of ill conceived messy crap.
So, when you have NaturalNumbers equal to InfiniteIntegers, then mathematics
tosses out such fake crap as Godel Undecideability and tosses out fake crap
like Cantor infinities.
With NaturalNumbers equal to InfiniteIntegers (the all-Adics) then mathematics
has only one infinity. One infinity where the infinity of the Reals is the
same as the infinity of the All-Adics. Where infinity is one kind, one type.
And that makes alot of logical commonsense because infinity is merely
endlessness and so how can you have species and varieties of endlessness. It
is just that too many mathematicians of the 20th century spent too much time
sitting on their duffs in ivory towers unable to think clearly.
And so, if Cantor was wrong and if Godel was wrong and their flaws of argument
stemmed from their belief that NaturalNumbers equals FiniteIntegers, then the
world of mathematics can give us a Anti-Godel theorem of Decideability. No
longer is it Undecideable but rather instead Decideable.
The start or beginning of a proof of a theorem of Decideable since
NaturalNumbers are Infinite Integers would be to show that subjects like
language and numbers and chemistry and physics have Minimum Quantization and
because language is a larger set than numbers that all statements of number
theory are Decideable.
Again I wonder if Liebniz monad theory was a sort of 17th century precursor of
the question of decideability or undecideability? I wonder if I can replace
the word "monad" with the word "portal" in Leibniz theory? So that if physics
has 9X9X9 levels and if chemistry has 94x1 levels and if language has 30x1
levels and if numbers has 3X5 levels that the English language will penetrate
all of number theory but never penetrate all of chemistry or physics.
And this makes sense in that mathematics without Cantor Uncountable and Godel
Undecideable all of a sudden becomes a rather conquered field of knowledge.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
- Next message: Douglas G. Kilday: "Re: New Scientist is at it again"
- Previous message: Felix Oscar: "what's the story of "Van" or "Von" in people's names"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads..."
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|