- #1
wetwonder
- 19
- 0
I'm re-examining. My mathematics is merely college major level. I am not involved with it in the direct or academic sense anymore, but I still think about it a lot.
My certainty is that there can not be "one" of anything in an actual sense - in terms of quantum position and time. I am unique, but to say there is one of me is an approximation, correct? The particles I am constructed of are in motion, adding to me, subtracting from me every moment.
Thus, to say there is one of me is a construct of our mind. "One" being the imaginary number we learned in Kindergarten. It's use is as a generalization to permit discussion, description, equation. Yet I'll put that aside - for the sake of argument, let's say there is one of everything that is in the physical world.
It follows though that there can not be "two" of anything. Again, "two," another imaginary concept in number. One fork plus one fork = one fork plus one fork. Both forks are in a physical sense very different, at the lower level - albeit it not to our eye per se. So again, the fork is being generalized by anyone who would say "there are two forks." Generalizing them as "two" could actually be an insult. (How would you feel if standing next to Hitler, someone described the setting as having "two people"). So such a statement would be false, unless one were to call a "fork," the word, the concept, an actual individual entity of the world. Though we all know it is not - we know that it only holds together as a fork due to a multitude of forces acting on it, which are ever modifying, and that no two forks are alike.
If it is impossible to have "two," then how can any equation be proved? Is it only an approximation of the world? Is it only a description we make to the best of our ability? The fork is a construct of the mind, so proving there are two forks is merely proving the imaginary construct that will only exist as long as humans or other intelligent beings exist. But it does not prove anything in terms of the physical world.
So has any equation really ever been proved?
Am I in the correct forum? :)
My certainty is that there can not be "one" of anything in an actual sense - in terms of quantum position and time. I am unique, but to say there is one of me is an approximation, correct? The particles I am constructed of are in motion, adding to me, subtracting from me every moment.
Thus, to say there is one of me is a construct of our mind. "One" being the imaginary number we learned in Kindergarten. It's use is as a generalization to permit discussion, description, equation. Yet I'll put that aside - for the sake of argument, let's say there is one of everything that is in the physical world.
It follows though that there can not be "two" of anything. Again, "two," another imaginary concept in number. One fork plus one fork = one fork plus one fork. Both forks are in a physical sense very different, at the lower level - albeit it not to our eye per se. So again, the fork is being generalized by anyone who would say "there are two forks." Generalizing them as "two" could actually be an insult. (How would you feel if standing next to Hitler, someone described the setting as having "two people"). So such a statement would be false, unless one were to call a "fork," the word, the concept, an actual individual entity of the world. Though we all know it is not - we know that it only holds together as a fork due to a multitude of forces acting on it, which are ever modifying, and that no two forks are alike.
If it is impossible to have "two," then how can any equation be proved? Is it only an approximation of the world? Is it only a description we make to the best of our ability? The fork is a construct of the mind, so proving there are two forks is merely proving the imaginary construct that will only exist as long as humans or other intelligent beings exist. But it does not prove anything in terms of the physical world.
So has any equation really ever been proved?
Am I in the correct forum? :)