Space Time Explanation

NOTES:

  1. Multiple observers might not agree on the interval of space and time and even order of events, but they always agree on causality ie Event A causin Event B. In other words they agree on the space-time interval of events
  2. Time is not responsible for causality (A causing B), but Causality is all there is, what’s REAL
  3. Reality is not a 3D space that evolves in time. It’s a 4D Non-Eucledian Mathematical space that;s JUST THERE
  4. This  4D Non-Eucledian Mathematical space is called space-time
  5. Points in  space-time are called EVENTS
  6. It’s the causal relation between events that;s real. ie A causing B can be seen as a line from A to B in our  4D Non-Eucledian Mathematical space

Only a Change in Environment Drives change..

Scientists have found bacteria that haven’t evolved for 2 Billion years. They’re not surprised..life doesn’t change unless environment and habitats change…

I feel the same applies to many things around me. My habitat for the last few years has been comfortable, and i’ve adopted to it..hence willingness to change is proving to be a thought opposed by my mind…

NOVA.S42E17.The.Great.Math.Mystery

  1. Is there a mathematical nature to reality OR is maths just in our head?
  2. Why do fibonacci nos. occur so often in Botany and Nature?
  3. Why does Pi show up in places like probability where there are no circles?

The best explanation for this is : The reason Mathematics seems to describe reality so well, is coz it’s all there is. For instance a simulated world of a computer game is just Maths, it’s the same with the design of the real world.

32 Constants and a handful of equations describe the entire universe and all there is.

So this means that there are no inventions in Maths, only discoveries

A more subtle Q is : Is Mathematics a truth of nature, or just the way we humans perceive nature?

Math models of Systems like weather, stock mkt and weather aren’t very effective…so this raises the Q : Is maths really all there is and then only reason these models are only reasonable effective due to the complexity of the system , OR there is something other than Maths at play here?

On Maths being invention or discovery, one way to look at is that we invented the nos. (meaning we saw 1 nose and 2 hands and then abstracted the no. 1 and 2) but then we Discovered the Relationship between nos. So it’s both inventions and discoveries