The Linguistic Algebra of Physics
                                                                      (in progress)

WIP the problem lap p1 oct3y03
              where am i?                                                     where is my mind?

                                  is the answer to a question another question?


Connection  energy  law of nature  meta-e rules  random events rule-a-b

last time1   last time2
question1    question2  question3


the great problem


a fundamental problem is to decide where is the physical world and where is human imagination?
where is the cat i can touch and where is the cat in my mind? does not the universe in which i am
born inside of include me include everything i produce? it includes my body and the produce of
my brain. what i see and what i imagine. i can imagine what i consider to be illogical things. so the
universe must include those things illogical to me. it includes set theories that are consistent and set
theories that engender paradoxes. it includes mathematics in which infinity exists as a construct of
symbols. does it include the astronomical infinity which may be felt but indirectly by measurement
with instruments we can touch? does the black hole with infinite forces exists? the object that is
eveything that can be logically derived from it and its subsets and everything that can not be logically
derived from it and its subjects is free to create itself with stars and apple trees and contradictions,
infinite confusions, and wonders.
infinity and eternity may become real.
there are supernova and angels.
the object is a dream that includes the fact that it is not a dream. the cat alone in the garden does not
exists. the cat alone in my brain does not exists. only the cat in the garden and the cat in my brain,
together, exist. the unimaginable thing that i can touch with my finger and the imagined thing that i can
not touch with my finger are both here.
disney and godel both exist.
if i say the universe is the union of the physical and the mental, i are saying the obvious. how can i say
the same thing in a way that is not obvious? that way will show the depth of the obvious. that way will
show that the obvious is not obvious.
the problem is what is the union? how is the union? why is the union?
can the union become a bomb? can the union propel me to the stars?
can the union free me from hunger?
can the union enable me to live forever?
the great problem is not the physical or the mental.
the great problem is the bond. the union.

symbols name what part of the universe we focus on.
consider the universe a union of the physical universe and the mental universe.
the pieces of the game and the rules of the game and the context of the game.

universe = matter + mind

how do we distinguish between the two - the context of matter and the context of mind?

this coffee cup is matter. ideas i have while typing this is mind. those ideas, mental intangible impulses,
those massless meanings somehow attached to the biochemical processes within my brain that constitute
what i have thought and what i am thinking, are producing tangible, measurable objects in the physical
universe, namely, the arrangement of pixels on the computer screen rerpresenting this thing i am writing;
my fingers applying meaurable forces on the keyboard and my moving hand have momentum that can
topple the coffee cup next to me, if i wish.
the distinction between matter and mind seems to blur:
the distinction between what i can hold in my fingers, the coffee cup, and what i can not hold between
my fingers, my thoughts.

another way of distinguishing matter or mind could be:
matter obeys newton's mathematics f= ma.
we can verify f = ma on the coffee cup

we can not verify f = ma on my thoughts.
What is the mass of a thought?


                  Everything is not mathematics

what is mathematics as we know it and apply it?
mathematics applied in attempting to model the material universe consists of concepts that are numeric/logical
operators. numeric concepts are those abstracts we call numbers that appear in equations or inequalities or as
representations of certain properties of objects that appear in the physical world, for example, weight.
included with these numeric concepts are rules that command how these numeric concepts may interact or
relate with each other. for example, rules of addition, division, distributivity, limiting operations used in
differentiation or integration.

logical concepts - concepts that relate to structures of implication and the rules, which are also concepts,
that operate among those concepts.
for example, logical variables, implication, negation, predication, existential qualification, sets, transfinite numbers.

numeric concepts are subsumed under logical concepts.

where does this structure reside?
Assuming a mind/brain acute & broad enough in storage, it resides in the mind where it is invisible until certain
parts of it are called forth into the material world where it appears in the form of speech/sound or in some
visualized form such as print on a paper page or as writing/images in a digital medium.

the structure expressed in a medium is, first, static.
the content of the structure remains fixed, N number of characters on the page.
the structure, as such, as is, is totally meaningless. it is as a piece of sculpture as in the empty depth of a black
space.
for example, there is equation (15), some text after, then equation (16) that is derived from equation (15).
what performs the derivation?
not the structure itself but the thing - a manipulator - that uses the structure's internal concepts and internal
rules to go from (15) to (16). the structure itself, the system, no matter how beautiful how deep as perceived
from an external mind, goes nowhere. it remains static, N number of characters.
only the manipulator - the external mind - can extend the structure beyond N characters.
the rules of manipulation within the structure do not manipulate.
the rules of chess do not themselves move the pieces on the chessboard.
the extrenal player using the rules moves the pieces.

within the material universe, having a law of gravitation does not by itself
imply the application of that law of gravitation.


   Connection

a law (rule) and a condition in which that law (rule) is activated must be
mediated. there must be a connection - an active principle - that proceeds
to apply the rule to a second concept.




this concept of an active principle, as it is conceived and expressed by a mind,
itself is static, a limited motionless extension of the structure from N characters
to N+16 characters. here is where the distinction between immaterial reality and
material reality appears.

   energy

physical reality - for example, our universe as it appears - is as a mind/brain reading a treatise (static)
and turning its pages. physical reality requires energy, which of course is also a concept but more,
it is a concept with a meta component, an external principle, that provides the jump from concept to
concept within the structure. this external component of an internal concept i will call the meta-e component.
it applies the law of gravitation, gives "reality" to the static invisible concept.

a law of nature consists of
   (i)  a rule
   (ii) a connection that actualizes the rule, applies the rule to the
        material component(object)of the the material universe
        a material component(object) of the material universe is
        a detectable object
  (iii) a material universe which actualizes the rule, the rule then
       can be experimentally delineated as data

        law of nature = rule + connection + detectable object


in general, the rule is not in the material universe.
that is, the rule is not necessarily the law of nature that governs in a physical universe.

rule above ---> rule below, expression of the rule in the material universe
    rule-a ---> rule-b

Question1: is it possible to change (i) or (ii)?

in general there are two sorts of rules:
    static rule - its actualization in the material universe does not
                  involve motion in the material universe
                  for example, the outcome of a random event, like the
                  toss of a die

a static rule may be a negation, an implication . . .?

   dynamic rule - static rule with a component of motion
                  its actualization in the material universe involves
                  a component of possible motion
                  for example, gravitation

Question2: a static rule for a 'random' event? actually, does the rule
asign an outcome in the material universe, so in the material universe
the outcome is seen/detected as 'random' but in the rule itself the outcome
is not random?
what is a random event? is there such a thing actually?
a true pure random event of the first kind
is one where given an input, then the output is totally unrelated to the
input except that the output is of the same kind as the input.
for example, the toss of a die with the initial face number m, the output
is also a die, the so-called same die as was the input, but the face number
is n totally unrelated to m.
except that the output number is restricted to the set {1,2,3,4,5,6},
there is no formula that determines the output number.
for a single sequence of tosses, if the toss were repeated only 6 times
there would be a formula,also if repeated a finite number of times:
T(sequence; input face number, number of toss) = output face number
for exampe, T(sequence 1; 5, first toss) = 2
if the toss were repeated an infinite number of times, then to be truely
random there must be no formula.
for an event sequence input-otput to be truely random, the event must
be a sequence that consists of an infinite number of input-output pairs

a random event of the second kind
would have the output of a sort totally unrelated in any way to the input.
for exampe, toss a die is the input, the output is a cat on the moon

the events of quantum mechanics are random of the first kind
moreover, a same experiment with a same conditions gives rise to the
same set of numbers. if the events were truely random the numbers would
not be the same.

Question3: if different, how is the rule different from the rule/equation
in the material universe that governs the behavior of objects in the
material universe?




theoretcally, that is, in thought, the structure of concepts
and rules may be thought of as being on one page (of a book, say)
and the meta-e component that drives the creation of subsequent
deductions/pages may be thought of as some essentially external
component performing the deductions and writing them on subsequent
pages of the book or creating subsequent pages of ethe book, that
is, the component actually creates the pages of the book.
it is possible that there are deductions, true statements, that
are not created by the meta-e component. for example, objects
or laws of the structure that are not the result of meta-e
deductions. conditions that exist and can not be explained within
the system.
what the limits of possibility are is a total mystery.


the system of a universe consists of the structure of rules/concepts
and the meta-e component.

in our universe is it possible to separate the rule strcuture from
the meta-e component?
for a fraction of time, to isolate a space in which only resides
the rule structure or only resides the meta-e structure?
probably, the fraction is less than planck time.


the mind developes the mathematics and drives it to deductions
and associated numbers that may correlate with numbers derived
from the physical world.
its deductions must lead to numbers or rankings of order or
percedence corresponding to events in the physical world.
for example, how much a thing weighs or when a thing happens,
before or after certain references.

for logical/numeric structures to develope conclusions
that approximate to a high degree the results of physical
experiments in the physical world, it is supposed that
these structures are to a correspondingly high degree free
of contradictions.

in short, mathematics is a system that resides within the
immaterial confines of our immaterial mind. mathematics
is not a neuron or group of neurons that can be pointed
to in our physical brain consisting of fluids, blood,
and tissue.
as such, mathematics does not exist in the physical world.
mathematics is part of the concept/rule structure of our
universe. the complement of that part is not mathematical
in the sense of non-complemented mathematics.

the universe is which we exist is physical because of its
meta-e component, the energy of/and space/time that is
reponsible for the electromagnetic waves/gravitational
fields and quanta that generate the sensual experience
of the existence we perceive.

 



                                                                 top
                                                               
                                                        table of contents
                                                       cosmology directory
                                                         main directory


  © hph