Alex,
***Any existing object regardless its nature, composition, appearance, etc is labeled in math as 1, and lack of the object is labeled as 0. This is the ORIGIN of math and this is why math is correct in explaining universe - it simply translates fundamental property of any phenomena or object "to be or not to be"***
Al, where in the heck did you come up with this? The origin of math is based on abstract relationships seen in nature. These abstract relationships were since axiomatically constructed from the most reduced set of statements that could still produce the math in question. Contrary to what you say, reducing math to existence/non-existence, or object/no-object, or 1/0, or whatever else has never produced any significant branch of mathematics (not even Peano arithmetic can be produced with such a simple set of axioms such as 1 and 0).
***PLUS possible mathematical symmetries of environment (as well as of identical objects themselves) into sligtly more complex statements we call "energy conservation" or "inverse square" or "magnetic field" or "Pauli principle".***
You need broken symmetries, you need some defined terms, you need lots of concepts to construct the many of the laws within physics. You simply cannot reduce physics to 1/0. As I said, this makes a mockery of mathematics and physics.
Why is it that you reject a unifying principle to the universe? Einstein accepted it, what is your chief reason for avoiding this inevitable conclusion?
Warm regards, Harv |