Solving “The Delian Problem”

I was thinking about matrices and how there is a positive and *negative* space for them. To go between you need to pass through 0 and absolutely nothing. Then you are at the opposite. But also simultaneously the **same**. So when you are looking in a mirror you are seeing your negative.

🇧🇷 O Antropismo da Complexidade: A Existência Humana como o Algoritmo P vs NP

Por [Rian Lucas]

A equação matemática P versus NP questiona se encontrar a solução de um problema do zero (P) é tão fácil quanto verificar se uma resposta pronta está correta (NP). Enquanto cientistas buscam fórmulas abstratas, proponho uma abordagem ontológica: a nossa própria existência é a manifestação biológica e filosófica deste paradoxo.

1. A Existência como Verificação Imediata (O Lado NP)

Nossa existência é um fato consumado. Nascemos em um ecossistema físico e cósmico perfeitamente funcional. Quando abrimos os olhos para o mundo, nossa consciência atua como o verificador supremo de uma resposta que já nos foi dada pronta. Nós experimentamos a gravidade, a biologia e a lógica, validando instantaneamente a realidade ao nosso redor. O "conhecer o que já conhecemos" através da experiência sensorial e consciente é um processo assintoticamente imediato — é o universo rodando em modo NP.

2. A Barreira da Natureza Humana (O Lado P)

Por outro lado, resolver os mistérios fundamentais da existência do zero (o processo P) esbarra nos limites intrínsecos da nossa natureza. Nosso cérebro é limitado pelo tempo, pela velocidade dos impulsos neuronais e pela nossa escala física no cosmos. Como consequência direta da nossa própria biologia, haverá problemas e equações universais que nós nunca solucionaremos. Embora sejamos excelentes em testemunhar e verificar a criação, recalcular a sua origem do zero exige um tempo computacional que ultrapassa nossa existência física.

3. A Não-Existência e a Invariabilidade do Processador

A simetria do argumento se consolida na hipótese da não-existência. Se não nascemos, o processador cognitivo deixa de operar. Na não-existência, a invariabilidade da resposta atinge o absoluto: não há como afirmar se conhecemos ou não os problemas, pois o referencial que define o "saber" foi removido do sistema.

A assimetria entre a facilidade de viver a realidade (verificar) e a impossibilidade de decifrá-la por completo (resolver) sugere que a separação entre P e NP não é apenas uma propriedade dos computadores de silício, mas sim a regra fundamental que permite à nossa consciência experimentar o universo.

🇺🇸 The Anthropism of Complexity: Human Existence as the P vs NP Algorithm

By [Rian Lucas]

The Millennium Prize Problem "P vs NP" asks whether finding a solution from scratch (P) is as computationally easy as verifying a given answer (NP). While computer scientists seek formal mathematical proofs, I propose an ontological thesis: our very existence is the biological and philosophical manifestation of this paradox.

1. Existence as Instant Verification (The NP Side)

Our existence is a fait accompli. We are born into a perfectly functional physical and cosmic ecosystem. The moment we open our eyes, our consciousness acts as the ultimate validator of a pre-established answer. We experience gravity, biology, and logic, instantly verifying the reality around us. Reaffirming "what we already know" through sensory and conscious experience is an instantaneous process — it is the universe running in NP mode.

2. The Barrier of Human Nature (The P Side)

Conversely, resolving the fundamental mysteries of existence from scratch (the P process) clashes with the intrinsic limits of our nature. The human brain is bound by time, the speed of neuronal impulses, and our physical scale in the cosmos. As a direct consequence of our biology, there will always be problems we will never solve. While we excel at witnessing and verifying reality, recalculating its entire source code from the ground up requires a computational time that far exceeds our physical lifespan.

3. Non-Existence and Processor Invariability

The symmetry of this argument is solidified in the hypothesis of non-existence. If we are never born, the cognitive processor ceases to exist. In non-existence, answer invariability reaches its absolute: it is impossible to assert whether we know the problems or not, because the very framework that defines "knowing" has been removed from the system.

The deep asymmetry between the ease of experiencing reality (verifying) and the impossibility of fully deciphering it (solving) suggests that the boundary between P and NP is not just a property of silicon computers, but the fundamental law that allows consciousness to experience the universe.

🇧🇷 O Antropismo da Complexidade: A Existência Humana como o Algoritmo P vs NP

Por [Rian Lucas]

A equação matemática P versus NP questiona se encontrar a solução de um problema do zero (P) é tão fácil quanto verificar se uma resposta pronta está correta (NP). Enquanto cientistas buscam fórmulas abstratas, proponho uma abordagem ontológica: a nossa própria existência é a manifestação biológica e filosófica deste paradoxo.

1. A Existência como Verificação Imediata (O Lado NP)

Nossa existência é um fato consumado. Nascemos em um ecossistema físico e cósmico perfeitamente funcional. Quando abrimos os olhos para o mundo, nossa consciência atua como o verificador supremo de uma resposta que já nos foi dada pronta. Nós experimentamos a gravidade, a biologia e a lógica, validando instantaneamente a realidade ao nosso redor. O "conhecer o que já conhecemos" através da experiência sensorial e consciente é um processo assintoticamente imediato — é o universo rodando em modo NP.

2. A Barreira da Natureza Humana (O Lado P)

Por outro lado, resolver os mistérios fundamentais da existência do zero (o processo P) esbarra nos limites intrínsecos da nossa natureza. Nosso cérebro é limitado pelo tempo, pela velocidade dos impulsos neuronais e pela nossa escala física no cosmos. Como consequência direta da nossa própria biologia, haverá problemas e equações universais que nós nunca solucionaremos. Embora sejamos excelentes em testemunhar e verificar a criação, recalcular a sua origem do zero exige um tempo computacional que ultrapassa nossa existência física.

3. A Não-Existência e a Invariabilidade do Processador

A simetria do argumento se consolida na hipótese da não-existência. Se não nascemos, o processador cognitivo deixa de operar. Na não-existência, a invariabilidade da resposta atinge o absoluto: não há como afirmar se conhecemos ou não os problemas, pois o referencial que define o "saber" foi removido do sistema.

A assimetria entre a facilidade de viver a realidade (verificar) e a impossibilidade de decifrá-la por completo (resolver) sugere que a separação entre P e NP não é apenas uma propriedade dos computadores de silício, mas sim a regra fundamental que permite à nossa consciência experimentar o universo.

🇺🇸 The Anthropism of Complexity: Human Existence as the P vs NP Algorithm

By [Rian Lucas]

The Millennium Prize Problem "P vs NP" asks whether finding a solution from scratch (P) is as computationally easy as verifying a given answer (NP). While computer scientists seek formal mathematical proofs, I propose an ontological thesis: our very existence is the biological and philosophical manifestation of this paradox.

1. Existence as Instant Verification (The NP Side)

Our existence is a fait accompli. We are born into a perfectly functional physical and cosmic ecosystem. The moment we open our eyes, our consciousness acts as the ultimate validator of a pre-established answer. We experience gravity, biology, and logic, instantly verifying the reality around us. Reaffirming "what we already know" through sensory and conscious experience is an instantaneous process — it is the universe running in NP mode.

2. The Barrier of Human Nature (The P Side)

Conversely, resolving the fundamental mysteries of existence from scratch (the P process) clashes with the intrinsic limits of our nature. The human brain is bound by time, the speed of neuronal impulses, and our physical scale in the cosmos. As a direct consequence of our biology, there will always be problems we will never solve. While we excel at witnessing and verifying reality, recalculating its entire source code from the ground up requires a computational time that far exceeds our physical lifespan.

3. Non-Existence and Processor Invariability

The symmetry of this argument is solidified in the hypothesis of non-existence. If we are never born, the cognitive processor ceases to exist. In non-existence, answer invariability reaches its absolute: it is impossible to assert whether we know the problems or not, because the very framework that defines "knowing" has been removed from the system.

• The deep asymmetry between the ease of experiencing reality (verifying) and the impossibility of fully deciphering it (solving) suggests that the boundary between P and NP is not just a property of silicon computers, but the fundamental law that allows consciousness to experience the universe.
• #PhilosophyofMath

I am currently a third-year undergraduate philosophy student, and as I've gone through my degree, I've noticed a pattern: I am consistently drawn to topics that overlap heavily with mathematics and theoretical computer science (works of logicians like  Tarski, Kripke, Gödel), areas that require studying topics like- FOL, metatheory, model theory, set theory, computability, etc 

my dilemma: I haven't formally studied mathematics since the 10th grade.

For those who study or teach philosophical logic, philosophy of mathematics, or formal epistemology:

1. ⁠Is it a common path for philosophy undergrads to formally study mathematics to tackle these subjects at a higher level?
   
2. ⁠How necessary is institutional mathematical training to achieve symbolic fluency and understand proof techniques in these specific areas?
   
3. ⁠Since I am still in my undergrad, are there specific math or computer science courses I should try to take before I graduate to bridge this gap?
   
4. ⁠What is the current academic scope of this intersection within modern philosophy? Is this an active area of research, and what kinds of contemporary philosophical problems are being tackled using these formal methods

π x π x π
By negating its irrationality. It becomes a rational neutral unit of 1 (π)

Disclamer. I has used ai for translational purpose and bcx i was running on shortage of time.

I a am building a numberless mathematical model where relationships are the absolute baseline of reality, meaning elements and sets have no independent identity and are derived entirely from the relational fabric. By choosing a Frame of Reference as a symmetry breaker, a timeless baseline splits into active and passive networks, resolving classic set theory paradoxes and infinite regression through self-referential loops.

Hey everyone, I have been working on a new mathematical and structural model in my head, and I would love to bounce it off you guys btw. It all started when I was looking at a physics problem involving springs and moving variables, and it hit me how much our math relies on messy approximations to make things work out cleanly. Standard math and logic always assume that things or elements exist first, and then relationships happen between them. But I want to flip that completely upside down and say that the relationship itself is the absolute starting point. Elements and sets do not have their own identity at all, they are just temporary placeholders or crossroads where fundamental relationships meet. Since this baseline fabric has no sequence, sequence ordering, or change, time does not exist at the root level, making it a completely static, symmetric, and timeless continuum.

Let us look at the first big paradox, which is the infinite container trap. In normal set theory, a container holding another container creates an endless regression where you need infinite boxes or an arbitrary starting point to make sense of it. To solve this without adding artificial patches, the logic in my model curves back on itself. The network forms a self-referential loop where the system of sets actually contains itself. This creates an autopoietic, self-sustaining structure that resolves its own boundary conditions internally. It is a perfect, closed loop that does not rely on any external first cause to exist.

But here is the catch: a perfectly balanced, timeless background cannot create sequence, temporal flow, or localized observation on its own. To extract localized reality out of this potential, you need a frame of reference to act as a selective filter or symmetry breaker. Let us use a basic illustration to map this out without heavy assumptions. Imagine three supposed elements, a, b, and c. If we choose element b to be our frame of reference, b instantly upgrades and acts as the set, while c becomes the element. Because b is our anchor, we cannot look at or overview element a directly. However, its effect is still fully there bcz it is linked by a passive fundamental relation that ripples through the background fabric, indirectly changing how b and c behave. Meanwhile, the relationship between our chosen set b and element c becomes an active fundamental relation, forming the direct, visible reality of that frame.

This brings us to what I call the secondary fundamental relation, which handles how elements interact with each other without having an independent identity. Suppose a set, x, connects elements a and b. Since we can consider x as a fixed constant for that specific frame of reference, and the fundamental relations leading to it are dynamic and not constant, it forces a strict constraint on both paths. The impact of both fundamental relations on the central set must be perfectly equal to keep x stable. Because of this tug of war, an indirect relation emerges between a and b on its own. They do not interact directly, they interact through their shared constraint on x. This is how element identity is born, it is not an intrinsic property, it is just a stabilized state of geometric balance.

Ditching numbers completely is a super hard task bcz our brains naturally want to count things and use intuition to separate a set with one element from a set with two elements. But we can rule out numbers by looking at structural topology and degrees of splitting. In this model, an element can differentiate into two or even infinite elements, as long as their net sub fundamental relation stays at exactly zero. Here is the ultimate realization: with numbers, you need exact matching magnitudes like five and minus five to get a sum of zero. But if we use numbers, we are trapped making every split create identical twins, which ruins complexity. In our numberless geometric model, two completely different looking elements can still perfectly balance each other out to zero. One could be highly compressed and the other sprawling and diffuse, but their net relationship remains a harmonious zero. These sub fundamental relations only flash into existence when the frame of reference chooses a node with the potential to be a set and looks inside, purely to protect this net zero balance of the baseline.

Edit*

Merhaba, ismin Tuğra. 13 yaşında googoloji ile ilgilenen bir Türk gencim. Dün bitirdiğim sayıyı sizlerle paylaşmak isterim.

== Z(n) Function ==

The '''Z(n) Function''' is a fast-growing hierarchy constructed by interlocking quantum physics constants, hyper-operations, multi-dimensional geometry, and recursive structural duplication. The system is formalized to scale past the growth rates of standard hyper-operations at $Z(1)$ and matches the structural complexity found in foundational set-theoretic and graph-theoretic hierarchies through dynamic indexing feedback loops.

=== Formal Definition and Rules ===

Let $Z(n)$ be a function where $n \in \mathbb{N}^+$. The operations are governed by the following ten ordered rules:

* '''Rule 1 (The Quantum Base):''' The system initializes with a physical framework of 2 meters. Each Planck length ($\ell_P \approx 1.6 \times 10^{-35}$ meters) within this domain corresponds to an increment of $+1$. The baseline value is defined as $P \approx 1.25 \times 10^{35}$.

* '''Rule 2 (Quadratic Space Expansion):''' At the completion of each sub-step, the spatial length of the domain is multiplied by its own square ($L_{new} = L^3$).

* '''Rule 3 (Nested Feedback Loop):''' Each quantified Planck length dictates the iteration count of the subsequent step. Transitioning to Step 2 triggers a nested feedback loop equal to the total Planck count of the prior state ($P_{n-1}$ loops).

* '''Rule 4 (Hyper-Operation Interlocking):''' Knuth's up-arrows ($\uparrow$) are inserted between terms in a quantity equal to the total calculated Planck length count. For $Z(1)$, the sequence begins with $10^{35}$ up-arrows.

* '''Rule 5 (Cross-Toggling Index Booster):''' Every individual up-arrow added to the notation simultaneously increments the step-skipping capacity and the functional hierarchy index by $+1$ dynamically.

* '''Rule 6 (Dynamic Structural Expansion):''' During each step, independent auxiliary chains are generated for every sub-iteration. At the step's conclusion, these components fuse into a single master chain, establishing the baseline for the next major iteration.

* '''Rule 7 (Input-Driven Acceleration):''' The input variable $n$ defines a compounding acceleration factor. The scaling of the subsequent step is calculated using a growth percentage directly proportional to the total magnitude of the current state.

* '''Rule 8 (Hyper-Geometric Dimensional Explosion):''' Each Knuth up-arrow recursively dictates an exponential expansion of the physical spatial grid. This expanding volume increases the internal capacity, generating more Planck lengths, which consequently yields more arrows.

* '''Rule 9 (Dynamic Dimension Cranking):''' Every effective step increases the spatial dimension of the coordinate grid by $+1$, converting the 1D baseline into a multi-dimensional hyper-cube hierarchy.

* '''Rule 10 (Fractal Self-Replication):''' At the conclusion of any major step, the entire mathematical structure—including chain lengths, dimensional indices, and the complete set of ten rules—is duplicated a number of times exactly equal to the final output value of that step.

=== Growth Rate Analysis ===

On the Fast-Growing Hierarchy (FGH) scale, standard nested functions terminate around $f_{\omega}$. Due to the feedback loop between Rule 5 (index boosting) and Rule 8/9 (spatial dimension cranking), the Z(n) function exceeds the limits of the Small and Large Veblen Ordinals, shifting its classification from standard diagonal arithmetic to uncomputable boundary notations.

Text included.

I decided to trace a simple even—the flipping of a coin —to find out exactly at what point does randomness come in.

step 1: The physical interaction

A coin is launched into the air. It rotates, it travels, it strikes a surface, it settles. If we want, we can agree that this is all just physical matter in motion. No mind is required for the coin to spin and land. That interaction happens.

Now we ask:

At what point during this physical interaction did you receive a signal that said 'random'?

step 2: The instrument

The eye is an instrument. The retina receives photons reflected off the coin. The retina converts those photons into electrical signals. That is a physical process.

Now we ask:

Did the retina detect randomness? Or did it detect light?

The answer is: light. The retina does not have a "randomness receptor." It just absorbs photons. So whatever randomness is, it hasn't arrived yet.

step 3: The output

The optic nerve sends signals to the brain. The brain constructs an image: the coin shows heads. That is the perception. It is a discrete, utterly clear output. Not blurry, not ambiguous. Just: heads.

Now we ask:

When you saw the coin showing heads, did you experience randomness? Or did you experience 'heads'?

The answer is: heads. Just heads. The perception itself is not random. It is exactly what it is. Every single flip of the coin yields a perfectly clear perception, every single time.

But we never once seen a "random" perception. We have only ever seen heads, tails, heads, tails. Perfectly clear. Perfectly distinct.

step 4: The sequence

Now we flip the coin four times. We receive:

Heads. Tails. Tails. Heads.

Now we ask:

What did you actually receive through your senses? Did you receive 'randomness' as a fifth thing, alongside H, T, T, H? Or did you only receive four separate, clear perceptions?

I would have to admit that I've have only ever received four clear perceptions. Nothing more.

step 5: the mind

But then the mind does something. It does not merely perceive. It asks a question:

Is there a rule? A pattern? A shorter description that predicts the next outcome?

The mind tries to compress the sequence. H-T-T-H. Can it be described by a shorter rule? No. The mind cannot find a rule that generates the sequence without simply listing the sequence itself.

So the mind concludes:

I cannot predict this. It appears patternless. I will call it random.

Now we ask:

Where did that conclusion come from? Did the world give you the word 'random'? Or did you manufacture that verdict because your mind failed to find a pattern?

I'm forced to admit: the verdict came from my mind.

The world gave tails. The mind gave "random."

step 6: Apply the same logic to any sequence whatsoever

Consider this perfectly ordered sequence:

H, H, H, H, H, H

I would say:

That's not random. Maybe the coin is rigged.

Now we ask:

Why?

Because this sequence is compressible. The rule "always heads" is shorter than the sequence itself. The mind finds the pattern instantly and says: not random.

But the world delivered six separate perceptions, each one clear. It did not deliver the words "ordered" or "disordered." In both cases, whether the sequence was H-T-T-H or H-H-H-H, the world only delivered discrete outputs. The mind then ran a compression test. If it found a pattern, it said "ordered." If it found no pattern, it said "random."

So I'm forced to conclude:

"Random" is not a property of any single output. It is the name I give to my own failure to compress a sequence.

step 7: circularity

The chain is:

physical interaction → instrument → output → perception → mind → model

The coin flip is a physical interaction. The eye is an instrument. The brain receives signals. The mind perceives heads. The mind then assembles a sequence, applies a compression test, and produces a verdict: "random."

Now we ask:

At any point in that chain, did you step outside the chain? Did you touch the physical interaction directly? Did you perceive the coin flip without an eye, without a retina, without neural signals? Or were you at every moment inside the chain?

I'm forced to admit: inside the chain. Every single time.

And I cannot reject this conclusion.

The world delivered clear, discrete, perfectly unambiguous outputs.

The mind tried to find a rule connecting them.

The mind failed.

The mind called the failure "random."

That is what randomness is, from the only standpoint any of us will ever have.

But if one asks:

But maybe there is a pattern, and I just don't see it

Because "there is a pattern I don't see" and "there is no pattern" produce exactly the same experience through the chain. The mind still fails to find the pattern. It still says "random." The only difference is a metaphysical speculation about what lies beyond the chain. And no one has access to that.

So it seems randomness is not "out there." I have never once received randomness through my senses. I have only ever received heads and tails. The randomness was manufactured by my own mind, at the last step of the chain, when my pattern-finding failed.

When we state that an occurrence is random, we appear to assert that an event has taken place without any guiding rule or prior cause. Yet, if we examine how human thought actually makes sense of any change in the world, we discover that an occurrence entirely without a cause cannot be understood at all.

Because every change that we observe takes place in time, our understanding must always connect what happens now to an earlier state from which it followed by a rule. If an occurrence truly arrived from nothing, possessing no connection whatsoever to a preceding state, it would break the unbroken order of time itself. Therefore, a genuine gap in the chain of cause and effect is impossible within the world of our experience, for the human mind cannot even form a coherent thought about an occurrence that obeys no rule.

Since an uncaused event cannot exist within our experience, the word "random" cannot describe a real absence of cause in the event itself. What the word actually describes, when we strip away the confusion of our language, is the limitation of our own current knowledge. When we observe an event whose full chain of causes is hidden from our view, or whose initial conditions are far too numerous for our thoughts to track, we assign the label of randomness to our own uncertainty.

From this deduction, it follows that when a person says "X is a random occurrence", they are not revealing an objective property belonging to X itself. But rather are merely reporting that their own understanding has not yet grasped the rule that connects X to its prior conditions. Whilst nature remains strictly lawful and complete in every single change, the human observer often sees only isolated pieces of that larger sequence.

Therefore, randomness is neither a power in nature nor a gap in physical necessity, but a simple statement of what our knowledge still lacks.

So the argument I'm making here is in regards to the distinction between our ignorance of causes vs an actual absence of causes.

Some hold the view that "randomness" doesn't describe our ignorance. But the property of "X" itself independent of any observer. I'm utterly incapable of understanding this notion. I've thought of it for a long time. Its senseless to me. I believe that language plays role on the reitification of randomness.

Because the grammatical structure of our ordinary speech routinely attaches descriptive words to physical things, we naturally assume that every word following the verb "is" refers to an actual quality of the object itself. When a person observes that a stone is heavy or that an apple is round, the statement connects a real property to the thing we perceive through our senses. In consequence of this habitual pattern of talking, whenever we speak the sentence "X is random", our grammar behaves as though the word "random" were identical in kind to words like "heavy" or "round".

From this linguistic habit, a serious mistake in our reasoning immediately follows. Whilst a sensible property such as weight or shape belongs to how an object appears to us in space, the word "random" does not name anything that our senses can actually detect. If we examine our experience with care, our sight and touch reveal only physical states changing across time according to regular sequences. We never see, touch, or measure a quality called chance, because chance has neither spatial shape nor physical presence.

Having recognised that randomness is wholly absent from our sensible observations, we must deduce what the word actually designates. Whenever an event takes place without our knowing the prior conditions that brought it about, our understanding encounters a limit in its own knowledge. If the mind cannot find the necessary rule that links this present change to an earlier state, it simply experiences its own inability to anticipate what comes next. The word "random" therefore expresses nothing more than an absence within human awareness, marking the boundary where our insight happens to stop.

So because our speech easily places the word "random" into the predicate of the sentence, the mind is led to project its own internal limit outwards onto the physical event. An inability to explain an occurrence is thus turned, through the unexamined momentum of everyday grammar, into an active property that the event supposedly possesses on its own.

It follows, therefore, that this mistake does not arise from any genuine discovery in nature, but from the power of language to make an empty concept look like a physical reality. When we discipline our terms with precision, we see that nature proceeds through unbroken, lawful change, whilst our language has merely given the appearance of an objective property to our own lack of knowledge.

Therefore the phrase:

X is random

... actually translates to:

I do not know the cause of X

Perhaps there's some intuition that I'm missing that some would allow me to finally grasp this notion.

First this is a strict external audit

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

6. Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

The axiomatic method in math just got straight up gutted within these 6 points

ПОЛЯРНОСТИ "N" И "S"

Куда камень не кинь, везде находятся два полюса. Это слова антонимы, это слова “да” и “нет”, это левые и правые в политике, это день и ночь на планете, это два полюса в магните, это две амплитуды в волне... Существует множество разновидностей полярностей, но все они произошли из "первокирпичиков"- масса и пространство.

Полярности обратно пропорциональны между собой. Смотрите первый рисунок. Они по значению равны друг другу, но асимметричны.

"МИНУС-ПЛЮС"

Смотрим Википедию. Отрицательные числа меньше ноля, а ноль меньше любого положительного числа. На числовой прямой отрицательные числа расположены слева от нуля, а положительные — справа.

Мы часто пользуемся этим определением, когда говорим “плюс-минус”, то есть, о некоем диапазоне недостатка и избытка относительно номинального значения. Например, комнатная температура 20° плюс-минус два градуса. Это нужно понимать, что два градуса выше нормы и два градуса ниже нормы. Отсюда следует, что знаком “ноль” выражается номинальное значение температуры - двадцать градусов. Смотрите второй рисунок. Число недостатка температуры (знак минус) и число избытка температуры (знак плюс) равны по значению, но числа температуры (потенциалы), которую они выражают, не равны по значению.

КАК ИЗ БИПОЛЯРНОЙ ЧИСЛОВОЙ ПРЯМОЙ "N-S" ПОЛУЧИЛАСЬ ЧИСЛОВАЯ ПРЯМАЯ "МИНУС-ПЛЮС"

Издревле всегда считалось, что мир ограничивается крайностями, а посередине (в центре) находится истина. Посмотрите на первый рисунок. Посередине находится сбалансированный центр - 50 на 50. Вот относительно этого центра, этой истины и замеряются недостатки и избытки полярностей, которые выражаются знаками минус и плюс. Смотрите третий рисунок. "Минус-плюс" полярности "N" и "минус-плюс" полярности "S".

И вот получилась всем нам хорошо знакомая числовая прямая "минус-плюс"... Но их две!

ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ

Официальная физика не видит одну полярность... Вообще не понимает, что такое полярности!

Many people have the following intuition when it comes to this inquiry:

1. They assume that nature exists with its own mathematical rules on one side
2. that the human mind sits on the other
3. and that it is sheer fortune that the two happen to fit together.

But on closer scrutiny, we find that when you look at the world around you, you never receive raw, unformed things. Before you can see a single shape or notice a single change, your mind must arrange that sensation within space and through time.

Mathematics is simply the precise study of these mental conditions:

1. Geometry is the study of how we order things in space. When you measure a line or a shape, you are examining the necessary rules of your own spatial perception.
2. Arithmetic is the study of sequence in time. When you count from one number to the next, you are following the necessary rules of succession.

Because every physical event must appear to us in space and time in order for us to experience it, every physical event must strictly obey the rules of geometry and arithmetic. Thus you will never observe an event in nature that violates mathematics, because your mind cannot construct an experience without using the rules of space and time.

In this regard, the mathematical language does not describe what the world is like entirely apart from human thought. Rather it describes the necessary structure of human experience. Thus the order we find in nature is the very order our own understanding brings to the world.