I have not followed the religious aspect of your posts but it seems to me
that to prove that 1+1=2 one must define all the terms in that equation and
then prove the equality. It seems to me that one can take 1+1=2 as the
definition of what 2 means. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Runge <integer@crosswalkmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Part Three: Mathematics and Physics from Genesis to Revelation
>Regarding: Mathematics and Physics from Genesis to Revelation
>
>PART THREE
>
>A MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF "FOUR WAY" AND "ONE WAY" LOGICS FOR COUNTING
IN RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH
>
>Four different ways of counting in absolute mathematical logic can be used
to represent four, equivalent, and yet uniquely individual, expressions for
any arithmetic statement in absolute truth. In relative truth and logic
there is only one expression for truth. For example, "1 + 1 = 2 is true".
However, by itself "1 + 1 = 2 is true" is NOT ABSOLUTELY true. It is only
RELATIVELY true.
>
>In absolute truth and logic "1 + 1 = 2 is relatively true" is replaced by
four equally true, and yet uniquely individual, statements, i.e.,
>
>1. "+ 1 + 1 = + 2 is true in absolute truth",
>2. "- 1 - 1 = - 2 is true in absolute truth",
>3. "+ i + i = + 2 i is true in absolute truth", and
>4. "- i - i = - 2 i is true in absolute truth."
>
>where the letter "i" represents imaginary one, or the square root of minus
one. For example, observe that "1 + 1 = 2 is true in absolute truth" only
when counting with positive real numbers is part of a COMPLETE, absolute (or
eternal) four fold expression for counting in the complex plane.
>
>The failure to recognize this absolute four fold symmetry in logic and in
truth is one reason for saying that THE MATHEMATICAL LOGIC OF THIS WORLD IS
INCOMPLETE, AND ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT. Using one way of counting when
three other ways of counting are equally valid is arbitrary and logically
incomplete. This is one source of the logical "incompleteness" in Godel's
theorem.
>
>Four, either-or symmetries (positive real, negative real, positive
imaginary, negative imaginary) for counting in the complex plane are
"isomorphic" with four, either-or, true false "symmetries" in the logic of
absolute truth (true in truth, false in truth, true in error, false in
error). Thus four ways of counting with plus-minus numbers in real or
imaginary states are a guide to true-false thinking in absolutely true or
absolutely false statements.
>
>For example, in absolute logic this means that it is possible to say that
"1 + 1 = 2 is relatively true" and yet "absolutely false" because "i + i = 2
i is absolutely true". Saying that "1 + 1 = 2 is false" because "i + i = 2
i is true" unambiguously indicates that positive imaginary numbers are being
used for counting, and NOT positive real numbers.
>
>ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE "FOUR WAY" LOGICS FOR COUNTING IN ABSOLUTE AND
RELATIVE TRUTH
>
>Finally, it is possible to use the "four fold way" of counting and
measuring above in an incomplete way that is logically false. This should
not be surprising, and it is another basis for the "incompleteness" in
Godel's "incompleteness" theorem.
>
>A true minister of the gospel preaches about the four absolute categories
of living truth in the Trinity and the eternal church in the Spirit of
truth. In the Spirit of truth logic is eternal, unambiguous, and complete.
A false preacher of the gospel speaks about the same four absolute
categories of truth in the spirit of short lived, ambiguous, incomplete, and
relative HUMAN LOGIC and reasoning. A false mathematician or physicist does
much the same thing by using positive and negative, real and imaginary
integers in the complex plane in a way that is subject to logical relativity
and uncertainty.
>
>This means that it is important to distinguish between four ABSOLUTE ways
of counting in mathematical logic and four RELATIVE (or uncertain) ways of
counting in mathematical logic. In other words counting and measuring in
four different ways in the complex plane (see above) BY ITSELF is an
insufficient basis for absolute mathematical logic.
>
>Four different ways for counting in the complex plane in absolute
mathematical logic ASSUMES that an infinitely true and eternal answer is
possible for every act of counting or measuring. For example, in absolute
mathematical logic it is absolutely truthful and possible to have exactly
one quantum, or 1.00000000.... quantum, where the string of zero's is
truthfully and literally infinite. In the vernacular when God deliberately
says "one" or "one quantum", He absolutely means "one" or "one quantum".
>
>This is not true in today's quantum mechanics. First, quantum mechanics is
a STATISTICAL SCIENCE in which "one quantum" really means "probably one
quantum". The statistical or probability nature of today's quantum
mechanics is the result of the logical uncertainty which is described by
Heisenberg's principle. Second, the "correct" formulation for today's
quantum mechanics is also "relativistic", which means that an underlying
four fold logic for space and time is being applied in a relative four fold
way that is not absolute.
>
>Readers who worry about understanding a lot of mathematics in this regard
are in danger of "missing the forest for the trees". This is a simple
point. Today's physics screams and shouts that relative and uncertain "four
way" forms of logic are everywhere present. This is analogous to
recognizing that four different kinds of coins (say pennies, nickels, dimes,
and quarters) are being used for counting money, while being absolutely
uncertain and only relatively sure about which kind of coin is which.
>
>For example, the word "relativity" in the theory of relativity indicates
that Einstein's four fold way of making dimensional measurements (in four
dimensions) is "relative" and not absolute. There are no absolute
directions for space and time in Einstein's theory of relativity.
>
>For example, in Dirac's theory of the electron, Heisenberg's logically
"uncertain" way of counting quanta (or electrons) dovetails with Einstein's
"relative" four fold way of counting or measuring dimensions. Consequently,
there are FOUR STATES for the electron (spin up and down electrons, spin up
and down positrons), but these four ways of counting or measuring electrons
as quanta are still logically relative and uncertain.
>
>For example, Gell Mann and others have extended quantum theory into a four
fold way of COUNTING QUANTA which is different in kind from Einstein's four
fold way of MEASURING LENGTHS in space. In the theory of quarks this "four
fold way" for counting quanta is actually called an EIGHT FOLD WAY.
However, this "eight fold way" might be described as a double "four fold
way". An analogy for a double "four fold way" of counting quanta can be
seen in two "four fold ways" for measuring lengths in relativity by using
two kinds of numbers (real lengths and imaginary lengths) in four
dimensions. This in turn suggests that the theory of quarks is based on a
double "four fold way" of counting quanta which is, nevertheless, relative
and uncertain, and not absolute.
>
>Finally, today's search for the Higgs boson is based on a "spontaneous
symmetry breaking" of four logically relative and absolutely uncertain
states. Subjecting the idea of a symmetry for four states to Einstein's
principle and to Heisenberg's principle means that the current understanding
of the Higgs boson is relative and uncertain in absolute truth.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Get your free web based email from Crosswalk.com:
>http://mail.crosswalk.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 09:52:41 EST