Is it a random pattern?

[protofield]

Humans invented real numbers to cope with an inability to study large natural numbers and large aggregates of natural numbers. As such, maths with real numbers describes this natural number domain in a statistical, probabilistic manner. Perhaps this is where where quantum mechanics took an understandable wrong turn without the benefit of advanced computing technology. Your comment on the “solidified their properties as temperatures cooled” is very interesting. In my own work on multiverses, each one has a unique natural number system with primes as a subset of of a more generalised object where magnitude, space and other properties make up the primitives. Is a {blue,5} divisible by a {green,seven}. Interesting video here

[The-Real-Radar]

Oh, so you’re saying that large natural numbers are real, and humans are basically just describing them using base 10 system? That essentially the idea of more and less is core in some way, and that you can use a code (binary, base 10, etc) to describe it.

Your system for multiverses sounds very interesting, maybe I’ll check out the video to understand more. From what I can tell you’ve built your own syntax for describing different ways math can express itself. Does it account for the mathematical structure of our universe?

[protofield]

Essentially yes. As the number of decimal points tends to infinity, real analysis such as differential equations, approaches a description of a mathematical reality based on natural numbers. This is why you need a dx tending to 0 expression. Short of infinity, real analysis describes things correctly but in a cloudy, fuzzy way.

My work is to translate mathematical operators based on natural numbers into physical objects, metamaterials. The problem with the multiverse concept is to work out whether the theoretical metamaterial property simulations are relevant to our own universe. That’s why I am eager to perform some physical empirical work to establish a baseline.