In article <4a067370-2f31-4aa8-9c73-0b41271b76e7@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In mathematics things are proved.
Or they are not proved.
> The reason you can do this is > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That > is mathematics.
Accepted for the moment - mathematical proofs build upon each other, and that is why proofs are so important - so that later posits do not collapse into a pile of.. well, legos as you put it.
> Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > they are and must remain conjectural.
No. Some conjectures have been proven. Your logic tumbles into the dumpster with that.
> But you CAN show that > conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit > together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every > mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement > and vice versa.
IOW, for every conjecture there is an infinite supply of poorly informed guesswork and wholly impressionistic objection which has nothing to do with the mathematics. I suspect you are exercising the same.
> There is no mathematical way to transform back and > forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but > to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe > that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same > things that math does.
Exactly what is this 'back and forth' you write of? [...]
> Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want > to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it > because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power > which does not exist at this time and probably never will.
You must tell us WHY this is so. A declaration is not sufficient.
> However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we > can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every > individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the > fine structure.
So you are presuming our planet, earth, without considering what you posited above which suggests differences among other planets. (In other words, speculative impressionistic ideas about distant systems which might not have the same physics humans experience. That's a panthromorpic view.)
> A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The > gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we > assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this > gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the > areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing > more than an imbalance as described. [...]
I suggest that you would find some helpful views if you consider time as information in the the classic sense, and then move on. Keywords: holographic view of the universe, which is really an entirely impoverished view, but the best that humankind like you can fathom.
Approximation might lead you to a failure of your philosophy that will lead you to a deeper concept.
