- Greetings:

Thoughts of responses and goals of mathematics/perception:

I was very pleased that paulmillscv realized exactly what I

was "trying" to say. The general concept, that I mentioned before,

is basically rooted in the primes with respect to their neighbors.

When I heard about other methods known as "sieve" methods in order to

find primes, I was relatively surprised though I was not pleased. I

do not believe that a formula for the primes, or an understanding of

them has yet been found. If such an understanding of the nature of

the primes was known, it would be prevalent in every possible area of

mathematical literature that one could find, and it is not. Primes

are still largely a mystery, and I believe that, to give them

justice, they should stay that way.

Let us the consider the true goal of mathematics or any scientific

pursuit. Yes, there is the goal of the world; the USING of

mathematical and scientific knowledge/information in order to satisfy

monetary greed or to wage warfare. There are countless other

materialistic and horrible ends that meet the, at first, innocent

understanding of a meaning more important than mere symbols on a

paper. The evils of this world corrupt all true insights.

Basically, what was once believed (by the creators whose innovative

ingenuity invented the foundation) as sophisticated thought actually

was USED to satisfy the most primitive core of the human minds who

abused such knowledge in their own private manipulative power games.

What is the true goal? The true goal is the process; it is not the

results. It is the gradual contemplative understanding of

mathematics as embodying a pure aspect of our existence. I realize

that mathematics is distinctly human; the capacity for it is inborn.

It is also a characteristic of many other higher lifeforms (more

similar to us--"higher" is a relative word) as I have been reading

about in the book entitled, "Where Mathematics Comes From." The

greater we understand the fact that linguistics and mathematics (in

its basic form) can be easily equated with each other and that

mathematics is simply a system of conceptual metaphors applied

through associative methods will we be able to collectively realize

that mathematics is akin to human perception and understanding of the

reality to which we are presented. Our mind is our reality; nothing

can be known outside of it. What I find shocking and true is the

sheer amount of symmetry that occurs everywhere. Much of this is

assumptive, yet the similarities are there: the consequence of the

human mind's structural bilateralization interpreting ALL ASPECTS OF

REALITY AS BEING BALANCED OR EQUALIZED. This must be intuitively

true. For another similar idea can validate it. We are limited by

our capacity. This is vital. It proves that there is only a

discrete amount that we can ever discern. If you are still a

skeptic, consider the analogy. A handheld calculator of nine digital

onscreen spaces available is limited to producing numbers of nine

digits (whatever number they may represent) or less. Therefore, the

calculator, by its design, is limited to a given amount of

information for a given amount of space-no more no less. Any system

that functions by some given rule (like the calculator) is limited by

its rules, and it cannot break the rules or extend itself beyond

them. The rules are an inherent property the the thing itself.

Taking away the these rules on the calculator would be like taking

away its ability to express numbers on a display screen (though the

digit space can be altered locally and the calculator can retain its

original purpose). What is most important is that the rules are

properties of the system, and by that they limit the system, thus

distinguishing it as a system differentiable from another. Here is

the second half of the analogy. Human beings (or human minds)

operate by specific rules just like the calculator. These rules are

really synonymous with inherent or inborn properties of the system

itself. The system cannot extend beyond its properties or its rules

that govern it. This applies to the question of whether it is

humanly possible to understand a reality outside of the human

condition. The answer is no. By our confined existence, we are

limited like the calculator into only providing what the rules permit

us to provide. We do not have direct access to our structure (unless

possibly the genetic code could be altered), but even then, no matter

what one does, a perception of reality will always be limited by the

structure of the perceiver's intuitive mechanisms. There is no way

around it. Reality is an inner reality, native to and curtailed to

the specific interpreting structures that receive information.

Whether or not any information actually travels to the "mind" or is

already within a "larger mind," is unknown and will always be

unknown.

Observation regarding the future:

You may chuckly at this based upon a possible inference of yours

that I believe I am a psychic. Of course I do not. The numbers are

psychic, though generally. The numbers are generic, yet their

implications can give one an idea of reality and where events are

leading. A subjective observation (that I have noticed myself and

have had reconfirmed several times) is that as one ages, the rate of

time increases proportionally. This would seem to agree with what

the numbers say themselves. This next part involves mental pictures

of a graph displaying that we will expect a "convergence" in the

future. I would be interested in finding a program that could do

such graphs.

This involves ratios (and it is proper since the existence of every

number is not by itself, but rather, as a ratio to another number).

Even the natural numbers are ratios: 1/1, 2/1, 3/1..

Here is the graph. The x-axis will represent discrete units of

time (t). Time will represent shifts in position from 0 (equaling no

time) to 1 (equaling the first two ratios in question), to 2

(equaling the next two ratios in question), and so on. The y-axis

will represent the decimal equivalent of the two ratios being

compared simultaneously in one unit of time. What two ratios are we

comparing? We are comparing a ratio greater than 1 and its inverse

which will be less than one. Here is how we begin:

() parentheses = repeating decimal

Time unit 0

no ratios

Time unit 1

1/1 =1.0

1.1 =1.0

("unity")

Time unit 2

2/1 =2.0

1/2 =0.5

Time unit 3

3/2 =1.5

2/3 =0.(6)

That is all one really needs to observe what is happening here. We

have a convergence of upper and lower regions towards unity as time

increases at a constant. Hmm. Notice anything? Didn't we begin at

unity? What are we infinitely approaching? Unity. Even though we

know where are going, the numbers will get closer, closer, and closer

to an almost perfect convergence on its starting point 1/1 yet never

get there. A dual asymptote. The antiderivative of this will be 1/1

which does equal the 1/1 derivative. Yet all of this jibberish only

does one thing: approximates. Approximations are not good enough.

We have a problem. Why is the beginning 1/1 complete, whole, perfect

and why is the eventual destination of convergence, fractional?

Here, I believe, is the most profound reason (if you are still

listening). Remember that understanding and personal exploration and

creativity are all that really matter.

Imagine what we consider as the number 1 or the equivalent ratio

1/1. We consider it static. Yet these numbers are not static! They

are moving with time; time makes them move or change in accordance.

Imagine if we broke up the "static, complete" number 1/1 into many,

many parts and we started adding them up. We would approach the sum

of 1/1, yet what if the number 1/1 was divided infinitely? This

means that we would never ever reach a "complete" 1/1. We would have

a fractional approximation that approached 1/1 with time. Begins to

sound like the graph does it not? What we have is the sequential sum

of additive parts converging to the same place (1/1) like the

sequence of ratios is converging to 1/1. A vital and profound aspect

of this involves the challenge against our notions of "wholeness and

completeness" not only in the numbers but in ourselves and our

reality as TIME is introduced. Time stretches everything infinitely

thin. But as time progresses (at a constant rate), the space between

becomes smaller causing time to be compressed into a smaller and

smaller area (or region of space). Don't believe me? See for

yourself. With the ratios, the increments of change between

subsequent units of time becomes smaller and smaller. As it gets

closer to 1/1 there is barely any space left, yet time is always

constant. The same with our additive sequence. As we add our sums

together, we approach 1/1. Yet the space remaining truncates. So as

we get closer and closer to 1/1 we are left with an increasingly

smaller amount of space, yet time is always constant. These lines of

logic have told me some extremely fascinating things. Have they told

you anything? I hope so. Where are we all going? Toward unity.

Where did we come from? Unity. We are heading in a loop. We go

from whence we came. It is oscillatory according to time. My

statements also prove that when 1/1 is divided infinitely with

respect to time, the end result will always be an approximate to

1/1. This is because time is the ultimate converger. When we look

at things realistically, we see that all numbers (when time is

involved) are not static nor complete. It is arguable that the

numbers themselves are more like a schematic representation of the

universe, but this is false. The sole existence of another number

ANY DISTANCE FROM 0(or your initial starting point whatever it may

be) is determined by a function of time upon that starting point.

The result determines the next set of data for the sequence, or your

next number. ANY SEQUENCE INVOLVES TIME! AND THE NATURAL NUMBERS

ARE NOT EXCLUDED. Can you count numbers in zero time? Or can you

even think of any two simultaneously? No! So how does 1 comes from

0? It is brought into existence by time. The first unit of time

gives you 1! Could it be that time really is synonymous with space?

Well, it has been proven so, not only here but elsewhere! This means

that the first unit of time actually generates existence! It

generates space! The ultimate question is what time is exactly. I

now know properties of its behavior. I know its general path, yet I

do not know where it comes from or what gives rise to it. I am open

to your insights in this area, to the pursuit of truth.

Sincerely,

Page - Marcel Martin wrote:
>

You took the words right out of my mouth, Marcel. Thanks.

> >Since no one responded, I must reiterate the importance of this...

>

> And why should people be obliged to answer such a stuff of mystical

> nonsense?

>

> Marcel Martin

Hans