Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Organic Mathematics (OM) The Science of Direct Perception (A non-formal introduction)

Doron Shadmi Organic Mathematics' reasoning is based on direct perceptions of the researched subjects, where the researcher's cognition is an inseparable factor of the real-time research. For example, by using direct perception we immediately understand that the claim that infinitely many 0-dim elements can completely cover a 1-dim element, is a false claim. Some mathematicians are using examples like "dragging point" in order to claim otherwise, but the simple fact is that 0-dim element can't be dragged, because any change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element, and this fact is invariant, no matter what scale is used. In other words, the stretching abilities of a "dragging point" is exactly one 0-dim and disjoint element. This is not the case with a 1-dim element. Such an element exists at-once in at least two given locations (which is a property that no 0dim element has). The ability of a 1-dim element to be at-once in at least two given locations, gives it its non-local property. It must be stressed that direct perception has no room for researcher's subjective manipulations, because it is directly based on the simple and fundamental notion of the essential difference between 0-dim and 1-dim elements. Most of "pure mathematicians" do not understand the 1-dim element as an example of Non-locality, and the 0-dim element as an example of Locality. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding, they miss the following: 1) No collection of 0-dim elements can completely cover a 1-dim element. 2) As a result no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many 0-dim elements exist along the 1dim element). For more details, please read page 7. x is an element. Definition 1: Identity is a property of x, which allows its recognition (using cognition is valid in OM). Definition 2: Copy is a duplication of a single identity. Definition 3: If x has more than a single identity which disallows its recognition, then x is called Uncertain. Definition 4: If x has more than a single copy, then x is called Redundant. 3) There is a universe that is the result of the association between Non-locality and Locality, which is measured at least by n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree. Some examples of n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree are shown in the next page.

The n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree, where n=1 to 3, is constructed as follows (these examples are partial cases):
1x1 A . (1) = (A)

2X2 (AB,AB) (AB,A) A * * | | B *_* A * * | | B *_. (AB,B) A * . | | B *_* (A,A) A * * | | B ._. (B,B) A . . | | B *_* (A,B) A * . | | B ._*

(2,2) = (AB,AB) (2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B) (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)

3X3 A . . . | | | B . . . | | | C ._._. (3,3,3) = (ABC,ABC,ABC) (3,3,2) = (ABC,ABC,AB),(ABC,ABC,AC),(ABC,ABC,BC) (3,3,1) = (ABC,ABC,A),(ABC,ABC,B),(ABC,ABC,C) (3,2,2) = (ABC,AB,AB),(ABC,AB,AC),(ABC,AB,BC) (ABC,AC,AC),(ABC,BC,BC) (3,2,1) = (ABC,AB,A),(ABC,AB,B),(ABC,AB,C) (ABC,AC,A),(ABC,AC,B),(ABC,AC,C) (ABC,BC,A),(ABC,BC,B),(ABC,BC,C) (2,2,2) = (AB,AB,AB),(AB,AC,AB),(AB,BC,AB) (AC,AC,AC),(AC,AB,AC),(AC,BC,AC) (BC,BC,BC),(BC,AB,BC),(BC,AC,BC) (2,2,1) = (AB,AB,A),(AB,AB,B),(AB,AB,C) (AB,AC,A),(AB,AC,B),(AB,AC,C) (AB,BC,A),(AB,BC,B),(AB,BC,C) (1,1,3) = (A,A,ABC),(B,B,ABC),(A,B,ABC) (A,C,ABC),(B,C,ABC) (1,1,2) = (A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC) (B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC) (A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC) (A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC) (B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC) (1,1,1) = (A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C) (A,A,B),(A,A,C),(B,B,A) (B,B,C),(C,C,A),(C,C,B),(A,B,C)

It must be noticed that any n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree can be taken at-once as a single element, or as any collection of its branches, but no matter how any n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree is taken, it is always the result of Non-Locality\Locality associations, where Uncertainty, Redundancy and the researcher's real-time cognition are inseparable factors of any research. Let us use direct perception in order to understand the real-line. According to Standard Math, there is one and only one set of elements, called the real numbers, along the real-line, which are filtered according to some principles. We can use Ford Circle in order to rigorously demonstrate it:

The whole numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements between some two given locations, which are based on tangent circles of the same size (the whole numbers are based only on elements like these two given locations). The rational numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements that are not based on tangent circles, between some two given locations (the two given locations are included in the collection of rational numbers). The irrational numbers are the result of any location between some two given locations that are not the results of the previous two filters.

By this direct perception of the real-line we immediately understand the following: 1) R set is the particular case of )R(-Uncertainty x )R(-Redundancy tree where any arbitrary member is fully recognized (it has exactly 1-Uncertainty x 1-Redundancy recognition's degree). 2) R cardinality is not well defined (marked as )R( instead of the standard |R|) as a finite cardinality (for example |3|) because finite cardinality refers to a fixed amount of elements (whether they are fully recognized or not) where R cardinality refers to an incomplete collection of 0-dim elements, simply because no collection of 0-dim elements (whether they are fully recognized or not) can completely cover a 1-dim element. 3) In this case both Standard and Non-standard Real-Analysis are fundamentally changed, because by using direct perception we immediately understand that what is called the real-line is the particular result of the association between Non-locality, which is represented by a 1-dim element, and Locality, which is represented by the particular case of fully recognized infinitely many and incomplete collection of 0-dim elements. Furthermore, by using direct perception, new kind numbers, called non-local numbers are shown, as follows:

Local number Non-local number

Fig. 1 Fig. 1 is a direct perception proof that 0.111 is not a representation of the number 1 in base 2, but the non-local number 0.111 < 1. Are there any numbers between 0.111 and 1? Yes, for any given base n>1 and any 0.kkk[base n] (where k=n-1) there is 0.nnn[base n+1] such that 0.kkk[base n] < 0.nnn[base n+1] < 1 Some example, based on direct perception, is shown in the next page.

Fig. 2 Fig. 2 is a direct perception proof that between any given pair of R members, which are local numbers, there exist a non-local number, whose exact location on the real line does not exist. A local number is not a limit of any non-local number, because local and nonlocal numbers are mutually independent. Non-local numbers are an extension of R local members. The mapping technique is fundamental for most (if not all) known mathematical branches, and it is clearly based on Non-locality\Locality linkage, whether the non-local aspect of the linkage is between some local element into itself or not. OM is the exact framework that enables Non-locality\Locality linkage development, where the researches cognition's training is a real-time and significant factor of the research.

In this short article we have shown that fundamental mathematical notions are changeable if direct perception is used in order to understand them. As much as we know, direct perception is not used yet as a legitimate tool for mathematical research, and we believe that a careful study of this subject is important for the mathematical science in particular and for science in general. We think that one of the first disciplines that can use direct perception as a fruitful method is Quantum Mechanics, because Non-locality, Locality and Observation are used as main principles of this science. In that case n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree can be found as a very useful tool.

A long term agreement Each complex system is in one hand a special phenomenon and on the other hand shares a common environment with other complex systems. OM's aim is to find the simplest principle that enables complex systems to communicate with each other by least possible destructive results. Destruction, according to OM, is any interaction that harms the linkage between Complexity and Simplicity. We can understand Complexity\Simplicity linkage in terms of Energy's waste. From this fundamental point of view a non-destructive interaction is any interaction that increases diversity (abstract or not) by using less energy. This notion can be used as a common state for, so called, different concepts like Ethics and Logics\Technology (In this case the concept of Technology is extended beyond physical developments, and includes also abstract tools (technologies of the mind) that improve Complexity\Simplicity day-by-day actual results). It must be stressed that Complexity\Simplicity day-by-day actual results are achieved only if there is an "agreement" (a smooth communication) between complex systems, which is not limited by the differences between them. This kind of "agreement" enables better interactions between specials, no matter what Complex abilities (abstract or not) any phenomenon has (the phenomenon can be a single virus or the entire human spices, it does not matter). In order to get a long term agreement (as described briefly above), the simplest terms that enable Complexity development must be found. We have found that this long term agreement is based on amazingly simple (yet enables profound Complexity development) principle, which is based on the linkage between two building-blocks, which are Nonlocality and Locality. The simplest representation of Locality is a 0-dim element (notated by ). The simplest representation of Non-locality is a 1-dim element (notated by ___). ___\ linkage results (introduced at least as n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree) provide an agreement that is not limited to any particular Complexity\Simplicity day-by-day actual results like Biological phenomena, Culture, Ethics, Politics, Religion, Sciences (exact or not), Education, Economy, Engineering or any Scholars agreement that is based only on verbal definitions. Verbal-only definitions are no more than subjective manipulations and defiantly cannot be used as long term agreements. Furthermore, if some group of complex creatures insists that verbal-only definitions is the one and only one way to be developed, then they miss the simple ___\ linkage, which actually enables verbal agreements, in the first place. ___\ linkage can be understood only by direct perception, and this is exactly the reason of why ___\ linkage is really an objective long term agreement (it does not need any further explanation in order to be used by a single virus or the entire human species, whether they are aware of it, or not). __\ linkage (introduced at least as n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree) is exactly the agreement where Complexity\Simplicity day-by-day actual results air their view.

Direct perception's concrete example Direct perception is not a thought exactly as silence itself is not the thought "silence". Thoughts are organized by direct perception. Some example of organized thoughts: "No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element" _____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element. represents a single 0-dim element. There are infinitely many on _____ By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that for any arbitrary on _____ there is < < , where < is possible for any amount of on _____ exactly because no collection of elements can fully cover _____ By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, we immediately conclude that no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many 0-dim elements exist along the 1dim element). The generalization of these examples is: n=1 to k=0 to n-1 No amount (finite or not) of k-dims is n-dim.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi