MM Theory ~In Comparison with Ordinary Physics~
△[Preface]
In my previous article, I wrote the first half of the Japanese version No. 5 and would write the second half next time. But after that, my thoughts and what I wanted to write changed. So, I changed my plan and decided to write small excerpts from previous Japanese articles and what I thought back and reconsidered.
I wrote the original version of this issue, but in terms of its quantity, there was a possibility that it could be difficult to understand the main points, so I decided to drastically reduce the volume of the article. Still, I have some more things to write, but I would like to look forward to it later.
Although this theory is in the category of philosophy, it is a very grand theory. I would be happy if you were interested in this thesis.
Abbreviations
ME＝Mathematical Element PE＝Physical Element
MM theory=Mathematical Mapping theory (this theory)
OP=Ordinary Physics
◆In some parts, abbreviations may be used frequently, so please be patient.
Link to Japanese articles
▲<Review>
In MM theory, the physical object = PE and the mathematical element = ME are equivalent in principle, and they are in perfect one-to-one correspondence. In fact, there is nothing other than MEs in this “world”, and we are no exception and interact with other MEs. Through that, we perceive the MEs in the form of “PE” and distinguish them from ME.
However, since there is a general equation of PE = ME, PE has a hidden mathematical property, and we figured it out in the form of "mathematics". And we use that mathematics to analyze back this physical space. This is just "physics".
And there is also another significantly important conclusion derived from above MP equivalence.
That is, the Big Bang, which is the beginning of the PE space, coincides with the initial logical expansion from certain axiom system, which is the beginning of the ME space.
This is the exact definition of the Big Bang!!
Also, one logical expansion, which is the minimum unit of displacement in logical space, corresponds to one Plank time, which is the minimum unit of displacement in physical space. That is, one logical displacement occurs every one Plank time.
▲<6 major differences >
I mentioned in my last article of English version that 3) of the 3 major differences has broken down. However, as I wrote in a subsequent Japanese article, I have shown that 3) is still intact.
In addition, while thinking about various things in writing articles of the Japanese version, some other differences surfaced between ordinary physics and MM theory. The number of them is six in total, including the previous three, and can be cited as the "six major differences". I will briefly describe the contents of each.
Before that, I would like to list the six major differences.
1)Current PE criterion or initial ME criterion
2) Idealized ME or concrete ME
3) Whether PE≠ME or PE=ME
4) Inside or outside of the system
5)Inductive or deductive
6) Integration or discretization
The former refers to the nature of OP and the latter refers to the nature of MM.
Here, the most essential difference among them is the idealized ME in 2), I think. I would like you to pay attention to that point as you read.
▽1) Current PE criterion or initial ME criterion
[OP] OP is based on physical objects in our current universe. Although various quantities of physics have been expressed in mathematical formulas, they are derived from the current concept of physics. We gain its physical meaning only from the present universe, and theories start from that physical meaning.
[MM] On the other hand, in MM, the PE is considered to be the virtual image of ME. Unlike physics, which has many unclear points, mathematics is more essential in that it can be completely elucidated by complete deduction, except for undecidable propositions. Also, we begin our consideration with the initial development of mathematical logic corresponding to the Big Bang.
▽2) Idealized ME or concrete ME
[OP] In theorizing PE we must idealize the ME. After idealization, we will categorize and analyze originally individual ME=PE. We will make considerations such as ``PEs of the kind αi have the mathematical properties ωi''. This will be effective in states of large number of logics.
[MM] In principle, there is a perfect one-to-one correspondence between ME and PE. We must do strict research because we consider each concrete ME according to that principle. This will be effective immediately after the Big Bang.
▽3)Whether PE≠ME or PE＝ME
[OP] At present, OP may have a composition of "each PE corresponds to an ME", but, we have just arrived ”consequently” at the truth of ME=PE. Based on PE in the current universe, it is not a complete one-to-one correspondence like MM, but incomplete. Therefore, ME≠PE.
[MM]In principle, ME-PE perfect one-to-one correspondence. PE is exactly what ME is.
▽4) Inside or outside of the system
[OP] We are inside this system of logical development, and there, we interact with other ME around us. We regard such surrounding MEs as "PEs". In other words, we regard what "we perceive" from the inside of the system as "PE".
[MM] Under MP equivalence, perform ME expansion and derive the PE state. It objectively analyzes the state of the system in ME expansion, so we can say that this is an analysis from the outside of the system.
▽5)Inductive or deductive
[OP] We begin consideration from the current state of logical equilibrium, which is the terminal state of the expansion, and pursue the essence of ME deployment. This analysis is the opposite order of the logical expansion, so can be said to be exactly inductive.
[MM] Analysis of ME (and thus PE) is performed under complete deductive approach from the axiomatic system. This analysis goes in the same order as the logical expansion, going from the essence of the expansion to its end, so can be said to be exactly deductive.
▽6)Integration or discretization
[OP] We have theorized PE and derived its mathematical properties. At this time, we aim to make multiple general PEs correspond to one ME and aim for a unified treatment of physical objects. The attitude of this research can be considered as the integration of PEs into MEs.
[MM] MM theory aims to decompose the idealized physical objects into individual PEs (=MEs). The attitude of this research can be considered as the discretization of PEs into individual MEs.
△[Afterword]
Compared to the first manuscript of this article, the quantity was reduced considerably, so this time, I don't think I could mention much about new things. On the contrary, I think that the main points of this article became easier to grasp.
Well, has there been any change in your perception of physical objects?
I feel excited because I think it will have explosive power if the MM theory is true and the "ME-PE correspondence" is gained.
I would be happy if you were interested in this MM theory and I think it would be pleasure if you could think MM theory or beyond.
See you again!!
