One Equation

[Dyst]

It is the theory of a single equation/mathematical formula that started it all, that controls it all, and defines it all. You can see it as a force, a formula, a law or something like that. However, it is universal and it is the one thing that started it all and controls it all, it is universal. Basicly, God, only in a mathematical and scientific language. However, I do not wish any narrow minded hyper-atheists destroy this conversation, so lets forget God.

Many scientists, physicians, mathematicians and philosophers believe in the theory of One Equation (basicly one law, or mathematical formula, such as the law of gravity) that is all embracing and controls/combines/encompasses all other mathematical laws. Basicly, defines reality.

I believe there is such a law or force or whatever you may wish to call it. However, it would have to be infinite. Infinity is impossibility, infinity is nothing, infinity is the strongest thing in the universe, infinity is what must be behind mathematics. The indestructable mathematics. Infinity answers so many of the questions we have never gotten an answer to. We will never get an answer because the answer is infinite.

What I mean is, the answer to the universe is quite possibly, in mathematical language, PI. In geometrical language, spiral. In english language, infinity. What I am saying is that I believe the One Equation is infinity.

What are your thoughts on the theory of the One Equation?

[I've Defected]

the answer is 42

[Cal]

the answer is 42

love your work!!!!!

excellent.

[Faceless]

The universe is nothing

why should anything exist?
If nothing exists then we could say the universe is zero
or 1-1
or 6 + 5 -3 - 8
splitting nothing into its opposites

[Zingu]

How about 1?


One could be divided into many numbers with fractions infinitly getting smaller which would be the forces inside of our universe, put together as a sum it represents one entire whole, sort of the inverse of what Faceless said...

[encephalon]

What are your thoughts on the theory of the One Equation?

I'm going to play devil's advocate, except instead of advocating the devil I'm going to advocate myself. And by that I mean this is something I'm considering. I don't have any sources for this.. it's something I've thought about on my own, but if anyone knows of any work that seems to correlate with this concept I'd be grateful if you provided it to me.

I'm assuming, since from all the posts of yours I've read glorify mathematics (not a derogatory comment), you know something of programming, though I may be wrong; and, since you seem very interested in the application of mathematics to explaining the nature of existence, you also have some knowledge of Artificial Life, artificial intelligence.

So, stemming from the programming idea, instead of the universe being infinite, as in entirely boundless--what if instead it is indeed bound, but infinitely recursive and self-referencing? This makes it reality and all that it holds undoubtedly fixed, yet at the same time those within the plane (reality) can see nothing but infinity, and thus apt to explain that which they are subject to as infintismal.

If one takes spiritual and superstitious explanations out of the question, then one has to conclude that cause and effect necessarily stem from another effect via another cause and so on, ad infinitum. Yet the very existence of "zero" presents a problem with this model, as it implies that something exists or does not exist--meaning that something exists, or rather non-exists, outside the scope of infinity itself. 0 div zero is 0. 0 plus 0 is zero. and so on. It is absolute and indivisible, and is not possible within a truly infinite context.

However, back to recursion, the only solution I can think of to address this. A very simplistic way to display the concept, though not exactly recursive but instead looping infinitely, would be a clock. Disregard the purpose of the clock, but simply the mechanism thereof--ie numbered 1-12, returning to 1 after 12 always and infinitely. Suppose that we wanted to calculate the length, in integers, between any two of the numbers, but from the perspective of being within the mecanism of the clock rather than looking at it from the outside. So, if we were the hour hand, on 1, and the minute hand were on 6, we would calculate 7 (looking counter-clockwise, as we are looking at the relationship from behind us). Likewise, if the minute hand were on 12, we would calculate 1. However, if it were on 1, regardless of how many times it's gone around the clock, we would calculate zero every time. So n0o matter how detailed our calculation is, it will always lead us away from the actual nature of the clock-world.

This relationship, I'm thinking, could be the basis of mathematics itself as a method of measuring the world from our own perspective, in the clock-world being on the one. Likewise, if someone were on the two their mathematical system would be exactly the same as our own from one. However, if one changes this infinite loop into infinite recursion, changing the one on the clock to one recursion, the two to a second recursion and so on, it changes in the sense that the mathematics in one recursion can be infinitely different than that on the second (though it doesn't mean it would necessarily be different), with one exception: the status of zero. In such a recursive plane, zero would have to mean (much like the clock) that recursion has ended, and returned to the originating generation; yet this originating generation (ours being hypothetically "1") is the recursion of another calling generation (and thus not "0" in that generation).

So, in such a world, at some point this recursion must either 1) have an originating force that has always existed, independent of both infinity and nothingness (0, being the result of measured infinity), and therefore entirely inconsistent with the cause-effect relationship our universe displays (which would be problematic in itself--that is very near the description many deists give to the existence of god, outside of reality and therefore not subject to its law.. it would be impossible to objectively define anything under this case), or 2) the mechanism of existence is infinitely recursive, meaning that the final effect of the chain is essentially the primary cause, and that the structure of reality is nearly incomprehensible by current dimensional models, at least in a visual representation (if I try to visualize it, it comes out as some fractal-like knot). In this generation of recursion, where the end effect meets first cause, zero is infinity and infinity is zero. On our own plane, zero could then mean that either the recursion has ended and returned, or that it has looped back through to us from the opposite direction in which we sent it.

So, regardless, on the theory of One Equation: if the nature of mathematics is dependent upon the recursivity of a plane (the only way I can think of to explain the existence of 0), then that equation cannot be formulated through our own mathematical plane.. which would explain quite easily the infinite variation of PI as well as the infinite and perfect uniformity it exhibits (i.e. a circle). But PI would not be infinity itself, but the measurement thereof, and since it goes through every recursive generation it must be subject to every variation of each generation's mathematical nature (thus the infinite "randomness" that we perceive)--and entirely unsolveable by our own mathematical system.

To get past this, we'd have to figure out a way to differentiate between "0" returned to us from a finite recursion and the "0" returned to us from an infinite recursion that has looped back to us. I don't have the first clue on how that might be accomplished.

So regardless, our equations would be useless in unravelling the nature of infinity and existence until that differentiation could be made (any ideas?!? :P). The nature of the universe could very well be a single equation, but one entirely foreign to our perspective, and unsoluble until we can (if at all possible) measure from another generation beyond our own (thus able to measure generations, and maybe through that differentiate between the two types of zeros).

That's probably a little jumbled, but I hope it makes sense..

[eyedrop]

Encephalon your answer reminded me alot of a theory I once read of stephen hawking that tried to explain how the universe could be finite without having borders. He tried to picture the universe as the edge of a baloon, and I think you're analogy with the clock is very similar.

[Dyst]

The nature of the universe could very well be a single equation, but one entirely foreign to our perspective, and unsoluble until we can (if at all possible) measure from another generation beyond our own (thus able to measure generations, and maybe through that differentiate between the two types of zeros).
What do you mean by two types of zeros? I read the clock theory, and I think I might be able to understand what you mean. Do you, by two zeros, mean the infinite and the zero? If so, anyways, I think it is wrong to try to find a difference between the two. I think there is no difference, and mathematicly we would realize they were the same, no matter which 'generation' we were in.
I probably misunderstood you, though... Feel free to elaborate/explain.

[encephalon]

What do you mean by two types of zeros? I read the clock theory, and I think I might be able to understand what you mean. Do you, by two zeros, mean the infinite and the zero? If so, anyways, I think it is wrong to try to find a difference between the two. I think there is no difference, and mathematicly we would realize they were the same, no matter which 'generation' we were in.
I probably misunderstood you, though... Feel free to elaborate/explain.


The is no difference provided we we want to measure nothing but ourselves in relation to ourselves; however, in order to shed light into the manner by which reality actually operates intependent of where we stand within it, we must first be able to measure it as such accurately; yet we could not do so unless we can differentiate between zero as finite recursion and zero as infinite recursion. Both would have the same subjective value to us, but not the same objective value in the universe as a whole, which is what we need in order to unravel the workings thereof.

Although this is another imperfect example, let's say we wanted to test whether or not a ball would come back to us if we threw it in the air, and used 0 as the starting point relative to us, -1 to 1 foot left, 1 to the right, etc. So we throw the ball high enough that we can no longer see it, and then it comes back at where we stand, being measured as zero. However, a problem arises (disregarding the difficulty one would have in throwing a ball this high and fast): did the ball go up just out of our sight, and then back down, or did it go high enough to orbit the earth entirely? Surely, we wouldn't want to measure them both as zero, would we, even though they both came dirictly back to us? Suppose with this method we wanted to measure simply how high we can throw the ball.

One could, of course, measure the time it took for the ball to come back, and discern between the two entirely different manners of reaching zero in that case (although one might conclude with this that the ball was simply thrown much higher instead of orbiting the earth). However, unless we outright reject the theory of relativity, we cannot use time the same way in discerning the mechanics of the universe, because time itself is the fabrication of the universe, and such recursion could not be measured by distance/time. So if we take time out of the equation in the ball-throwing experiment, we cannot measure whether it simply went up and down or around the earth entirely, and therefore cannot accurately measure the true manner in which the ball comes back to us at the 0 mark, and thus can't truly measure how far it was thrown.

In the context of defining the mechanics of the universe, this boils down to differentiating between a finite zero and an infinite zero, the only known common factor each recursion would have to one another (although not necessarily the only one; i'd imagine the mathematics of a recursion would stem from its parent recursion and so on). If we cannot discern between a returned zero from a finite recursion, and a returned zero from the infinite recursion, we cannot accurately measure any recursion aside from that in which we find ourselves. Everything, in this case, would be subjective and non-applicable to the entirety of a recursive universe, and therefore useless for measuring outside of our own recursion.

I don't mean the infinite and the zero; what I'm saying is zero cannot exist in borderless infinity; and if such is the case, the universe would have to loop back to itself recursively, and zero becomes a subjective assessment rather than an objective one. This alone wouldn't be a problem if we had another recursive generation's zero-value relative to our own to measure it by; yet the problem is further complicated by the fact that either of the zeros--that is, our own recursion or that of another we've obtained--could be two entirely different values objectively rather than subjectively. Without knowing the difference, we could be trying to measure the universe by something returned from a finite source rather than the true infinite measurement that represents the entirety of the universe, in which case our measurement would not be of the universe itself.

Our Mathematics, then, would only measure our own recursion, and not that of the universe. "0" in our recursive generation, without the ability to differentiate, would be entirely different than "0" in another recursion; and a zero returned by finite recursion is necessarily different than the zero returned by infinite self referencing recursion. They arrive by two completely different processes, and represent two radically different natures.

[encephalon]

Encephalon your answer reminded me alot of a theory I once read of stephen hawking that tried to explain how the universe could be finite without having borders. He tried to picture the universe as the edge of a baloon, and I think you're analogy with the clock is very similar.

Yeah, I've read that. It is one way to explain how the universe would look as though it infinitely expanded. In such a case, however, our measurements would not be accurate, either; for we would be measuring the surface of the balloon rather than the dimension from which the expansion stems.

[Xvall]

Grape Ape!

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:39 AM
How about 1?


One could be divided into many numbers with fractions infinitly getting smaller which would be the forces inside of our universe, put together as a sum it represents one entire whole, sort of the inverse of what Faceless said...
In such an instance where you are pointing to a single thing which is everything, if everything is infinite, then 1=infinity.

[CommieBastard]

So, stemming from the programming idea, instead of the universe being infinite, as in entirely boundless--what if instead it is indeed bound, but infinitely recursive and self-referencing? This makes it reality and all that it holds undoubtedly fixed, yet at the same time those within the plane (reality) can see nothing but infinity, and thus apt to explain that which they are subject to as infintismal.

I'm sure I heard a theory once that the Universe is a finite component of an infinite Multiverse of overlapping superimposed Universes. Not sure whether this would provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon you are wrangling with here, as this isn't my speciality.


If one takes spiritual and superstitious explanations out of the question, then one has to conclude that cause and effect necessarily stem from another effect via another cause and so on, ad infinitum. Yet the very existence of "zero" presents a problem with this model, as it implies that something exists or does not exist--meaning that something exists, or rather non-exists, outside the scope of infinity itself. 0 div zero is 0. 0 plus 0 is zero. and so on. It is absolute and indivisible, and is not possible within a truly infinite context.

As far as I understand it a model of the Universe doesn't have to account for zero, as there is no evidence of it's existence. It is a hypothetical number used in mathematics, that does not necesitate that it has 'real' existence, only conceptual existence.

After that you lost me :huh: ah well <_<

[Dyst]

As far as I understand it[,] a model of the Universe doesn&#39;t have to account for zero, as there is no evidence of it&#39;s existence. It is a hypothetical number used in mathematics, that does not necesitate that it has &#39;real&#39; existence, only conceptual existence.
Mathematics can easily be used to describe (or prove, determine, explain) "reality". For example, calculating the areal of a square. In this process we most probably would meet zero many times. In mathematics it appears a lot, and mathematics can be viewed as a map of the world, therefore it must appear often in reality, as well.

Remember that numbers are both philosophical entities and points (as in geometrical-) or quantity.

[CommieBastard]

Whilst there is the existence of the concept of zero, what this relates to in the real world is a lack of existence.

Mathematics is a system of concepts like any other, the fact that the concepts relate mainly to quantity does not lend them any greater significance than any other concept, such as &#39;cheese&#39;, &#39;buggery&#39;, &#39;pride&#39; or &#39;liberty&#39;.
What it does lend them is a greater coherence and clarity that allows for an ease of application.

[encephalon]

I&#39;m sure I heard a theory once that the Universe is a finite component of an infinite Multiverse of overlapping superimposed Universes. Not sure whether this would provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon you are wrangling with here, as this isn&#39;t my speciality.


yeah, I believe that&#39;s actually part of the string theory. I&#39;m using "universe" in the sense of Multiverse, really, with each recursive generation being a singular "universe" with its own set of unique properties.



As far as I understand it a model of the Universe doesn&#39;t have to account for zero, as there is no evidence of it&#39;s existence. It is a hypothetical number used in mathematics, that does not necesitate that it has &#39;real&#39; existence, only conceptual existence.


See below.


Whilst there is the existence of the concept of zero, what this relates to in the real world is a lack of existence.

Mathematics is a system of concepts like any other, the fact that the concepts relate mainly to quantity does not lend them any greater significance than any other concept, such as &#39;cheese&#39;, &#39;buggery&#39;, &#39;pride&#39; or &#39;liberty&#39;.
What it does lend them is a greater coherence and clarity that allows for an ease of application.

I propose that zero does not relate to a lack of existence--for indeed, that cannot truly exist in infinite somethingness--but the point at which a value recursively circles back around to us (through different universes) at its point of origin; whether it be infinite or not. And, in such a case, if we were to measure the true nature of the universe(or multiverse) beyond pure untestable subjective hypothesis, we would first need to be able to differentiate between these two types of zero.

[CommieBastard]

Zero can exist within infinity.
Where there is an infinity of a finite variety of things.
The value of anything which is not within the finite variety of things has a zero value.
Such as unicorns. They have a zero value within reality.

Either way, we cannot prove an external infinite reality, whereas we can prove a finite internal reality where zero definately does exist, where we give values to our concepts based on their level of correlation with our perceptions.

[Dyst]

Zero can exist within infinity.
Where there is an infinity of a finite variety of things.
The value of anything which is not within the finite variety of things has a zero value.
Such as unicorns. They have a zero value within reality.
If reality is infinite, there does exist unicorns. Maybe (or that is, definately) not here on Earth, but the universe is infinite (here) and it exists somewhere else. But as you said, if you have an infinity number of a finite variety of things, then yes, you can say that there isn&#39;t unicorns. But, that is hardly relatable to the subject of an infinite reality, whereas the idea is the infinity of the universe, and everything within it.

[CommieBastard]

can an infinite universe not contain a finite variety of things? I would say it is practically required in a multiversal view of reality.

[encephalon]

Zero can exist within infinity.
Where there is an infinity of a finite variety of things.
The value of anything which is not within the finite variety of things has a zero value.
Such as unicorns. They have a zero value within reality.

Either way, we cannot prove an external infinite reality, whereas we can prove a finite internal reality where zero definately does exist, where we give values to our concepts based on their level of correlation with our perceptions.

pi is not finite, yet surely is not zero.

Nothing can exist in somethingness no more than something can exist in nothingness.

[CommieBastard]

pi is not finite, yet surely is not zero.

I nowhere intended to suggest that inifinity equates to zero, and do not believe my argument requires this tenet.