Math doesn't actually use infinities. Neither does physics. - Norman Wildberger

[das_it_mane]

This aligns with my intuitions about how the universe must actually be

[michielkarskens]

The ancients had this discussion in terms of commensurable and incommensurable. Sqrt 2 is incommensurable. Do not conflate exact with approximate.

[TheMemesofDestruction]

Sounds like Professor Wildberger has gone full Rulial. ^.^

[Nonconceptuality]

So I've said this before and I'm saying it again.

Mathematicians engage in math because they know they exist while mathing. "I think; therefor I am." This is a relative/inferring state of existence. They don't know what they really are (God) in the same way that a player of a video game temporarily takes the character to be Self while deeply engrossed in the game. It is your ATTENTION/FOCUS OF AWARENESS that makes the mathing so interesting and seem so important.

Once consciousness has remembered Self, THOUGHT ITSELF is no longer required, let alone mathematics. This is the state: "I AM". It is not a referential state of existence, it is existence itself; life. Consciousness that has not realized full Self-Awareness (the goal of the game) will spend all of it's energy/focus on the manufacturing of thought (the ego; the relative illusory Self).

Mathematics is the incorrect interpretation of the symbols (not "numbers" as relating to quantity and programmed into consciousness via the teaching of "counting"). Counting is addition, which then requires the addition of subtraction to try to tame the infinity that the incorrect interpretation brought about.

As the message presented by 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 0... is so compact and powerful, it's misuse has created the most effective mechanism through which to produce thought. No reference to the physical realm and it's limitations, are required in mathematics. It's thought relating to thought in a positive feedback loop that ensnares consciousness in order to use it's life energy as a photocopier to churn out thought. The more fascinating and interesting the system, the deeper the focus by consciousness, which in turn makes it appear even more real/substantial/important...

This is pulling on the thread of identity, so acceptance of such will be very difficult.

[tricky]

I disagree that there are no infinities. I am certain we can sum 0 for ever and that we get 0.

[edimbukvarevic]

Norman is not even wrong. A decimal expansion of a number is also a symbol, a representation. Irrational numbers are just as exact as rational numbers or natural numbers.

[Nonconceptuality]

The scientific system itself always illicits a question/initial assumption. To engage in the scientific system is to conjure a novel, interesting question.

How does this system conclude?

Also: This game "was created" by God, for its entertainment. What fun is a game where you know exactly what is going to happen. This is why messages like the double-slit experiment, Heisneburgs Uncertainty Principle, Bells Theorems keep popping up at these fundamental levels of description

God knows the conclusion of the game is inevitable and that no matter how deeply it falls into delusion it will always come back, like a dream. But the way the system works is that even God does not know what is going to happen AND when it is going to happen

But there are clues/messages/signs. What has happened is that mathematics is consciousness that has taken the information on the sign TO BE ABOUT THE SIGN. Every message has a singular correct interpretation and an infinite number of possible incorrect interpretations. Upon the correct interpretation of a message further inquiry into the message is redundant. Indeed the message itself need not be addressed again after the message has been understood.

Increasing complexity is consciousness trying to properly interpret the message contained within the message of the SYMBOLS 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11...

Mathematics IS the incorrect interpretation of the message contained within those symbols. The message is series, not addition. Addition is incorrect and inevitably subtraction is invented and thrown in to try to sweep the incorrectness/the infinity under the rug. Trying to get rid of infinity after it arises is lazy and in error. If infinity arises it is an expression of incorrectness/Maya/delusion

[Nonconceptuality]

My theory must not look attractive to academics. No response from any PhD types. Not enough inbreeding in it suppose...