This is not true based on that article:

"Guess what? It seems (to me anyway) that what we call "mathematical physics" is a "hologram" projected out of what we call "mathematics. "

It's all math physics. Only the 2-d physics on a closed surface is sufficient to define the 3-d physics inside the surface. A hologram is the name of the waves on the 2-d surface that project into 3-d objects when illuminated by coherent light.

There is nothing in that article that relates math to physics in terms of dimensionality.

So the idea of the relationship of math and math-physics must have come from your intuition. I know of no reason why math should be 2-d and math-physics 3-d.

So I suggest that you remove this postulate from your post and then see what is left of your logical process.

This is quite simlar to your "nature counting" postulate. You have not yet identified the process where counting makes uncertain things more certain. It seems to me that your postulates are too uncertain to build a theory on them. Perhaps you should "count" the postulates to get them greater certainty.


Sincerely,

Richard

• "2" doesn't specify which one is which? - dolphin - August 17, 2003 - 03:55 UTC