one mathematical code rules our universe

Our mathematics describes the physical world within the space of our perception and imagination in a wonderful, miraculous, magic and mysterious way.
But there is a small problem: the world of our perception and imagination isn't really real and fundamental.
So, could it then be, that our mathematics likewise isn't really real and fundamental?

Exactly, that's the point!
Our mathematics is based on human perception and imagination, it primarily describes a static space, an idealised but non-existent borderline case of dynamic processes. It's a kind of vitious circle: our ancestors developed a sophisticated method to describe the world they perceived, raised that method to an independent full-fledged science, and we today ask ourselves why this science generates such very well working models of the supposed reality. Sure, the thought is abridged, but the meaning is clear. Mathematics has to describe the world - no mystery at all - but only just the world of perception. It fails widely or completely, when dynamic processes comprise infinities and infinitesimal small values simultaneously. Unification of relativity and quantum physics is not possible with this mathematics in an acceptable simple way. (Btw: even set theory, e.g., is not fundamental in the required sense - 'objects' are not real!)

Our mathematics is incomplete still, doesn't provide the dynamic code that rules our world, and on the same time it contains a lot of ballast that is adverse to physical interpretation. Physical laws have to be 'true' and 'real' and a priori valid, not invented by men but discovered, while mathematical rules don't comply with these conditions in a good consistent way. Too many axioms have been established intuitionally during the long history of mathematics. Physical reality is not based on axioms and also does exist in absence of human consciousness, then admittedly without all the properties we perceive, associate and attribute to 'nature'. Physical reality, even when not observed, at least exists as mathematically representable patterns and structures, which however don't contain the familiar 'self-evident' constructs of our perception and imagination.

Equally as we aim for strict epistemological reductions and fundamental definitions of space, time and physical objects, the classical mathematical formalism has to be knocked into proper shape in many respects for self-consistency, but simultaneously has to be extended significantly to comprise dynamic aspects. One of such concepts, admittedly in the state of a preliminary intellectual game, is the horn torus model. Horn tori are pure associative symbols for complex numbers. All what we explain by horn tori, is an utterance concerning properties of complex numbers. We even reduce to integral numbers, (1,1) being a natural unit for metrisation. It is the pair with smallest possible absolute value within the model, because (1/n,1) in the interpretation 1/n rotation per 1 full revolution is the same as 1 full rotation per n revolutions = (1,n), so (1,1) remains the smallest reference for all other ratios, and there are no fractions of revolution and rotation - only integers. With this so called 'standard dynamic horn torus' we possess a natural source and simple explanation of quantization.

Metrisation of the horn torus space and an easy explanation for constancy of light speed arise from the perfect self-similarity of nested horn tori, all being part of fundamental entities, but to reproduce that imagination, faculty of abstraction is challenged maximally and readiness for broad familiarization is indispensable. Trials of assistance are provided on many pages within the horn torus website. The relatively simple basic image already produces lots of properties within the model and accordingly in the hereby emulated universe. Higher complexity of any level can be reached by iterated substitutions of real parts of the complex numbers by new complex ones, then ultimately leading to - already known - extensions of the number system, to quaternions, octonions, sedenions. ... Anyway, the most promising, presumably the only, method to understand our universe roughly, is a mathematical one. Until now, empiricism alone hasn't brought fundamental insights, despite alleged successes by colliders and suchlike. Nature still hides its secrets, but at least I'm sure:

the universe is mathematical

visualisations   home   related paperhorn torus (text)  ↺↺