Mathematics works in infinity and as we know infinity is nothing - just space. What we need is something that takes account of the real world and properly accounts for the natural realities as well as the man-made.
Firstly to the origins of numbers and maths. It all took place when it was thought that the earth was flat and if one travelled over the edge one would fall off. The sky was just above. The planets hung in the sky like plates. And the sun travelled around the earth.
Two finite points were taken, one on earth., the other in the distant sky and numbers were developed to measure distance between in equal, equidistant units, and numbers were born. Given time the treatment of the infinite became simply transferred to the finite, which is where we are at today.
This work aims to suggest that simply to transfer infinite accounting to the finite is inadequate for a number of reasons. It starts mainly with the progression of number which starts with nought, and treats nought as just another unit when it is the opposite of a unit, progressing with finite units through tens, hundreds, thousands, million, billions - with a never-ending total and to apply to infinity, we start anywhere.
Finite units do not begin with nought, they start at a finite point and specifically end. Nought is the limit.
If we are to look at things naturally which is what we must do if we are going to be accurate, we can say that we are on earth with the earth below surrounded by earth, therefore we most conclude that we always have a finite start; so for counting purposes we must start with one. To start with nought places infinity in the equation and treats it just like a unit when clearly it is not a unit but an alternative to a unit, the only alternative to a unit. In fact nought or nothing is quite different to dealing with anything finite.
The progression of numbers leads to tens, hundreds, thousands, millions and so on. Yet these are examples using nothing. One million for instance, is 6 noughts and one finite unit. There are problems with this. To use more than one nought is to assume that nothing can be multiplied which cannot be the case and to use only one unit in a million disfigures the natural which will be a million distinct finite units. Hundreds, thousands, billions, all suffer from the same problem.
Another problem is the identity of a total. Mathematics works through units to variable total, unspecific, when finite existence is always specific, a total which cannot be gone beyond and as such that total is always preclusion (unless the problem is man-made). Units are elements within a pre-prescribed total. With the natural as a generality a total will be all that we can see or think about. Within our view of thought will be individual elements or units, all different as part of the whole rather than fitting additionally upon units to make up a whole.
As examples of this: If asked to consider a forest, the view will be of many trees as a preclusion, even though we know that the forest started with few trees. If we wish to turn our attention to one or two trees this view is within the predetermined total of trees and not to separate units adding up to a forest.
When asked to consider the earth, most people will automatically consider the total globe rather than thinking about it country by country or land and sea which are all elements within the total. If a man has fifty pounds in his wallet, that total money is fixed as a preclusion; any counting of that money is within the pre-determined total which cannot be gone beyond.
It is plain mathematics and the progression of numbers is an inversion of finite reality. Asked to consider a bottle of milk, maths would say that there is milk plus a bottle, but it would be nigh impossible to consider the milk without the bottle.
The only time that it may be true to say that addition leads to a total is when something is being made, e.g. a cake. It is possible to say that you add the ingredients to make the cake but do not forget that you change the nature of the ingredients and add energy. To simply add the ingredients would lead to a hotch-potch.
It is about time to think about things as they truly happen, rather than relying on mathematics which disfigures the natural.
Nowhere is this better demonstrated than with Einstein's Theory of Relativity which I say is a theory of anti-relativity precisely because it uses mathematics and reaches the mathematical conclusion E = MC2. One or the other, an either/or situation which in my later work I will demonstrate as being anti-relationships. Anti-relationships are by and large negatives that are destructive or consumptive or both, that only produce positive benefits as an aside. True relationships are pluralisations and naturally positive and productive. So true relativity is demonstrated by the atom where energy and mass combine to a naturally productive conclusion.
A two-fold situation is natural relativity, something that mathematics is ill equipped to demonstrate, just a simple fact. It would be impossible to separate the mass of the earth from its natural energetic movement around the sun and moving on its own axis. This is a demonstrated relativity. Relativity is when mass and energy combine rather than being on opposing sides of an equation. Relativity is the whole rather than separated elements, something that cannot be mathematically expressed.
Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, are the mathematical man-made activities that at best only suit man-made activities and manufacture. In nature these activities are doubtful. Birth, eating, growth, illness, death, erosion and cyclical activities are the natural movements beyond measurement. Mathematics does not figure in them.
As all life is cyclical and the earth's movement is cyclical, it is necessary to find ways of looking at the natural factors when accounting for reality rather than mathematics which tends to be a one-way drive. Rather like Einstein's theory, it is dominated by the equation with its two-sided equal answer: an either/or situation, each side stands up. This leads to that single-sided benefit in which case each side is disassociated with apparent benefit on one side, with the possibility of going for one side rather than the other. This is really what I call an anti-relationship and is negative. Relationships are positive and are two or multi-fold. Anti-relationships are very dangerous because they are either destructive or consumption.
These are only possible because mathematics work in the infinite, allowing a one-way rush for solution and either/or situations. We deal naturally in only the finite and the finite has mass and energy together, a two-fold situation.
So instead of the one-way push and either/or conclusion of mathematics, what is needed is the two-fold balance retention copying nature. Such balance is the only way to retain a healthy outcome. Finite existence needs to last to be of long-term use and to go simply for the mathematical one-way push and one-sided benefit approach will prove costly.
Two-fold progressions and solutions giving balance give a much clearer indication as to progress but of course it is necessary to know and balance the two elements to maintain a relationship. In the case of the world or anything on it the two elements are more and less that make up the whole.
A simple way to look at this would be to use an abacus, say with one hundred counting beads. The mathematical approach would be to add one, to two, to three, four, five, six and so on, in a one-way push until 100 was reached. The mathematical solution to the abacus would be one to one hundred, totally comparative. The two-fold approach would be to count one used, ninety nine left; two used, ninety-eight left; three used, ninety-seven left and to carry on until one hundred used, none left. What would be demonstrated was the abacus goes through four clear stages. Stage 1 less used/more left; stage 2, same used/same left; stage 3, more used/less left; stage 4 all used/none left.
To retain balance and a relationship the two-fold solution would be at best to stay in stage 1, at least stage 2. To go into stage 3 would be dangerous and to reach stage 4 would be a disaster. So the two-fold relationship system gives very different results to the one-way mathematical approach.
Just imagine that it were the earth's scarce realities under test and not the abacus.
Mathematics has enabled many inventions but we do not know the true cost. It is clear that if mathematics were left unrivalled it would kill the goose that laid the golden egg!
It is only word with its mix of twenty-six letters, consonant and vowel, which enables us to explain and account for all that is in the world and beyond and perhaps in the long run is far more use than mathematics.
The main subject in this work has been what I call Realistics, using realistic thinking to condemn total reliance upon mathematics for accounting as it yields the prospect of negative anti-relationship dominance in the world. This is to suggest that we need to consider relationships as positive and productive and that we live with the consequences of both.
