image description image description

LATEST CONVERSATIONS: Is the foundation of mathematics fundamentally flawed?

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things “

If it is true that a physics equation that results in infinity must be discarded, then why is the current number system accepted as a representation of the physical realm? If mathematics relates to the physical realm, and the physical realm that we experience is finite, then mathematics itself must reflect this in entirety. The fact that the current version of the number system generates infinity, while all physical evidence points to a finite universe is a glaring indication that the foundation of mathematics is incorrect. Occam’s razor should have one question such redundancy.

What is it about the current number system that induce such infinite redundancy? What is the role of mathematics in physics? Is mathematics relating to the physical realm? If so, does it possibly lose this connection at some point?

Upon close examination of the number system it is apparent that there exists two points where redundancy arises. The first one addressed is primary and represents the movement of consciousness away from the unification of Brahman-Atman into ego. The second represents the splitting of consciousness into the separation of thought from physicality.

The primary arising of the number system within consciousness:

0 represents that which cannot be and/or is not described. It is not a lack or absence of something, but rather the potential for everything. 1, I submit, is fundamentally a representation of 0. This is the same relationship as Brahman-Atman. The relationship/interaction between 0/1, Brahman/Atman is so subtle, so immediate, that it has not yet given rise to dualism. In this model there is only 1. This would speak of the concept of 1 relating to all of physicality. 1 is not, fundamentally, representing apparently separate physical phenomena such as “apple”. The set of 1 includes all of physicality. If this is so, then how does 2 arise?

2 arises when consciousness attempts to describe/represent 0. Consciousness that has misinterpreted physicality to be fundamental Reality and the body to be Self, will search for the source of the ‘I’, which is the inherent intuition that Self is not the body. Consciousness that has fallen into the delusion that the physical realm is ultimate Reality will not be able to recognize Self as that which cannot be, and/or is not described. Such consciousness will, until Self is Realized, continue to search for the source of the ‘I’ as originating from physicality. This search is the thought process and manifests in the physical realm as symbol.

Consciousness that believes physicality to be ultimate Reality while possessing the inherent intuition that Self is not physical will attempt to bring that which cannot be/is not described into the physical realm. In relation to the number system, this is the equivalent of “counting” zero. The need to have Self as something, rather than accepting that Self is that which cannot be/is not describable, brings about the illusion that 0 = 1.

If 0 is counted – if Self is erroneously believed to be the set of 1 (physicality) – then 0 + 1 = 2. Consciousness that believes physicality is fundamental Reality attempts to quantify Self, which is that which cannot be/is not describable. If 0 is accepted and left to be the void of unknowing, it can be seen that 1 – the set of physicality – is Atman. 0 + 1 = 1. Unity. Nature. In such relationship Self can be Realized as source of the ‘I’.

The arising of infinite redundancy within the number system:

If mathematics does relate to physical experience, and physical experience is finite, then mathematics must also fundamentally be finite.

The point at which infinite redundancy arises is at the number 10. 10 is obviously a mirror-image the start of the system – 01. Intuitively, one sees this as a closed system. Why does it go past 10?

Firstly, if mathematics does represent physicality, I propose it is not in the classical sense of ‘counting’. I suggest that the numbers 1-10 are representing something far more elementary than the appearance of separately existing physical phenomena. The concepts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 where not ‘designed’ to be used to label and manipulate physical reality, but to reveal it.

Fundamental constituents, or levels, or realms, of reality seem to manifest as this set of 10. ie: the 10 dimensions proposed by string theory, and/or the realms/levels of: quarks, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planetary, solar system, galactic, universal. I really don’t know what the physical constituents the concepts 1-10 are representing, but I have a strong feeling that, with the arrival of quantum mechanics, all of physicality has been revealed. Perhaps we just need to look at it through a different lens.

Back to 10.

How does the set replicate indefinitely? Firstly, as stated previously, 0 should not mean anything other than: “that which cannot be/is not described”. As ‘used’ at the beginning of the set, this meaning is inherently understood. 0 is the source of the set, it is not a part of the set. 0 is from which the set arises. It should, then, to align with any sense of symmetry, be that to which the set passes. It is the Alpha but not the Omega.

The 0 in 10 is part of the set. It should be left outside of the set. It should not represent anything. However, in the case of 10, it begins to represent a part of the system. This is the point where the number system stops representing physicality and BEGINS REPRESENTING ITSELF. If each symbol of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 relates/corresponds to distinct physical constituents, then
why does 10 also relate to the system itself? It is as if the final physical constituent is being represented by a symbol whose primary purpose is the perpetuation of the system itself. Do you see? The 1 in 10 represents not so much the ‘tenth thing’ as it does ‘one set of ten things’. The 0 in 10 does not represent/describe the ‘thing’ at all, but rather describes merely an aspect of the set. The 0 in 10 does not refer to anything physical at all. It is there only to perpetuate the system itself. It is dualism every way you look at it. 10 in no way represents unification or singularity. It is the fundamental representation of dualism.

Is the perpetuation of the system necessary in order to fully describe/reveal physicality? I have a strong feeling it is not.

Perhaps I’m a crackpot, but here’s what I figure:

The number system is not ‘intended’ to be used in the conventional sense of counting. 0 represents Self, which is “that which cannot and/or is not describable.” 1 represents the ‘All’, which is anything that is described/experienced.

Consciousness that temporarily falls into the delusion that the All is Self will still possess the inherent intuition that Self is neither that which is described or experienced. This inherent intuition is the ‘I’, or Self-awareness that human consciousness possess.

Consciousness that feels the ‘I’ will look for it’s source within the physical realm. Clues leading back to Self will be revealed if recognized correctly. One of these clues is mathematics. However, human consciousness has misinterpreted the clue and has misused it. This misuse has led to the infinite redundancy of today’s accepted number system, and to a greater misunderstanding of Reality. In order to use the system correctly, the number 10 should be replaced with it’s own distinct symbol and the system should not re-use 1 or incorporate 0 at all.

I realize how crazy this sounds, and I must admit that much of it is speculation, but there is something inherently wrong/incomplete with physics as a whole. How is it that, despite all of our understanding about the physical realm, the level of suffering experienced by humanity seems to be increasing? What good is all of the technology that has been developed through the findings of our current physical models? Seems to me that this technology has led humanity as a whole further away from Reality/Self. There is something inherently missing, incorrect, incomplete, with today’s science. I feel that we must stop ‘going forward’ and start, as Ramana Maharshi said: “go back the way you came.”

‘Going forward’ with more thought will simply create more questions and the attempt to answer those questions may in fact change the appearance of physicality in such a way that ever new questions will need to be asked, new theories to be developed. What if it has been, the whole time, that the mental energy put into the development of new physical theory, and the subsequent testing of that theory against physical reality has changed how physicality appears to us? Is that not what quantum physics is telling us? If this is true, then physics is a dog chasing it’s tail. Has not quantum theory shown us our own tail? Does the cycle end only when we stop, turn inward and find Self?

The answer is here. It has been for millenia. The metaphors may have changed, but Reality is the same.

Is the foundation of mathematics fundamentally flawed?

Please select the social network you want to share this page with:

We like you too :)

9 Responses to “Is the foundation of mathematics fundamentally flawed?”

  1. January 02, 2015 at 3:31 pm, Mit Jones said:

    Roy; Thank you for sharing your thoughts,

    Arthur M. Young describes the paradox of zero in a similar way in his book “The geometry of meaning” he points out that zero is not a number, He argues that numbers can be added, subtracted, divided or multiplied to express change or motion, zero remains zero. It is what does not change.

    • January 04, 2015 at 11:22 pm, RoyDopson said:

      Yes. And to include it as part of the set is in error.

  2. January 04, 2015 at 11:44 pm, RoyDopson said:

    There is translation of Nirvana that means: “Extinction.”

    Assuming 1-10 is describing nature and evolution: If the process is finite, or has some ‘goal’ or endpoint, what if that endpoint is the counter? That is, what if the perspective is taken that YOU are the endpoint, the pinnacle, of the evolution of your universe. This would require taking each person’s perspective/world as a distinct reality from everyone elses (ala many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics).

    The universe arises and passes within Self, not the other way around. If consciousness does not recognize this, that Self is the Alpha and Omega, it will misinterpret what 10 is actually relating to. The system concludes in/with the counter (a consciousness that has a level of self-awareness capable of discovering the system). The system is revealing the fundamental workings/evolution of the very consciousness that discovered it. To fully understand/correctly interpret the meaning of the system, the counter must be counted.

    10 is the complete evolution of consciousness back into source. the 0 in 10 does not refer to a continuation, it refers to completion. However, if consciousness does not accept Self as that which cannot be described, it will continue to attempt to describe it, which results in the redundancy of symbol.

  3. January 21, 2015 at 10:16 am, Paolo Manzelli said:


    <> is a world wide network proposed by EGOCREANET/MIND
    MAGAZINE that would construct future horizons of creativity for
    developing an intellectual adventure to revolutionize mechanical limits
    of industrial knowledge to get a
    conscious responsibility to better human life and protect the
    environment and biodiversity in the current age of globalization. The
    impact of FNL endeavor would cover trans-disciplinary research in
    science & technology & art affecting the change of policy
    ,social and economic factors of the future knowledge society.


    1) The gene expression and coordination at distance .

    The activation of specific sections of DNA is determined by the
    specific conditions of space-time. As we know DNA is wrapped tightly and
    it is not curled up randomly in the center of cells.

    Therefore, to express the total DNA potentialities living at the center
    of each cells , it must be activated simultaneously in a differentiated
    way in various parts of the body and brain.

    Currently genetics
    believes that the operations of conduct and subsequent activation of
    specific DNA sections are locally independent from a coordination
    program of sharing and controlled simultaneously the genetic activities
    in the body and brain.

    When asked what causes the remote
    coordination of DNA different expression both in the body and brain into
    a shared programme able to grow different life-cells of the body and
    the brain and finally un-structuring them by an apoptosis program ?
    .Currently there NOT answer by mechanical science about the simultaneity
    of coordination of gene expression at distance to grow up in a perfect
    co-organization very different cells in the body and brain.

    The whole description of the factors of able to simultaneously
    communicate the coordinated action planned by DNA in the body and the
    brain may be a new important field of Life research.

    For this
    probably is useful to change the way of we configure the Space-Time as
    in the way that we have proposed in the new structural dimension
    identified by Quantum Space- Time Matrix.

    Certainly …
    2)….. 3)… Other issues on the need of overcoming the mechanical thought of academic science may be improved.
    Paolo 21th Jan 2015 Firenze


  4. March 20, 2015 at 7:17 am, Christina Munns said:

    I propose that two arises as a result of the intrinsic attraction between 0:1 (i.e. between Shiva & Shakti)… this attraction force between 0:1 is the midpoint – the state of the bliss of union between these two states. This midpoint between 0:1 is .5. It is at the point of union between 0:1 that produces the “offspring” of the state of 2 which is the state of materiality or particle state. It is from the three numbers of 0:1 and .5 that the number 2 arises. This is the mathematics of cosmogenesis.

    • March 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm, RoyDopson said:

      I disagree. .5 is not 2; it’s .5 : ) You are describing the birth of the rational number system, which occurs at the fourth rung of the evolutionary ladder of this system of thought. Primitive humans would know 2 apples far before they developed knives and could cut the apples in distinct halves.

      To find ultimate Truth one must, as Ramana Maharshi said: “Go back the way you came.” Consciousness will never arrive at truth ‘going forward’ within/using thought. If consciousness turns 180 degrees the other way and looks for Source, only then will one find what they are looking for.

      What is it that motivates consciousness to count in the first place?

      So one must ask: “What is the purpose of thought itself?” In this video I pose an answer that question:

      • March 22, 2015 at 11:13 am, Christina Munns said:

        Thank you Roy for your reply and for the video too…. There is obviously much to discuss between us!! 🙂 Due to time constraints I have not been able to watch all of the video. I think that we have a lot in common – e.g. agreeing that the physical realm is illusion and that Consciousness underpins the material realm and that we will never arrive at Ultimate Truth without going within ourselves. However I’d like to make the following points that I feel might help explain where I’m coming from:
        1. When you say “primitive humans would know 2 apples far before they developed knives and could cut the apples in distinct halves”… this comment is using the example of human experience and this statement is obviously true! However, it is not the truth about the nature of .5 and 2. From the perspective of the emanation of the cosmos that arises from the state of Absolute Zero or Pure Consciousness/Brahman/The Self/God/Shiva – the state of .5 arises before the state of the number 2. The birth of the rational number system occurs before the advent of human beings (i.e. before apples can be cut with a knife).
        2. I propose that purpose of thought itself is to help the human being process, engage and learn from the external world, but its higher purpose is for self-inquiry- i.e. to reflect upon the nature of existence so that once can pierce the veil of illusion (Maya) and thus come to know the real Truth of one’s identity as being equal to the Cosmic Subject or Pure Consciousness/God/Brahman.
        3. The origin of desire arises from a higher state than the human being – and is but a lower emanatory state of the original attraction between the Cosmic Subject (Shiva – Father God) and the Cosmic Object (Shakti – Mother God).
        4. You mention in the video above that “the physical realm is dependent upon Consciousness”, but according to my research that I have written up in the Munns Unified Field Theory – the physical realm is itself COMPOSED of consciousness, albeit it in a different form (tamas). This means that materiality is itself Consciousness, not that it is dependent upon it. What Max Planck meant in his comment was that matter is DERIVED from Consciousness – i.e. that matter arises from the substratum (superposition) of the state of Consciousness.
        5. Another point is that you mention that “quantum physics has found that when no consciousness interacts or is present in the quantum state – i.e. when there is nothing prior… then the physical realm does not exist”. Now I know that my response here is going to be a subtle one but I propose that since Consciousness is Itself the underlying substratum of everything (I.e. there is nothing but Pure Consciousness in the entire cosmos but that it has transposed itself into three different states) then there is ALWAYS Consciousness present, even in the superposition state. The difference is that in the superposition state there is only the unobserved state – i.e. there is no object or perceiver that witnesses the superposition state and since there is no state of perception (i.e. no state of 1) and there is only the state of 0:1 (the superposition state) then this is the reason why there is no particle present because the superposition state has not become collapsed from the event of perception/observation by another object/perceiver. It is only upon perception/observation that the superposition state of 0:1 collapses to become the cross products of the states of .5 (wave) and 2 (particle). Thus materiality/particle state only arises due to the presence of an object/a state of 1/of “another”/the presence of “something”… this is how quantum physics operates, since the particles interact with each other through the physics of perception.

        A more comprehensive explanation can be found in Volumes I & II of Principia Unitas – which is the series of books I have written that explain the Munns Unified Field Theory.
        The most important point that I’d like to make however, is that we can think an analyse all we like about the nature of reality but until we exist AS the unified field, as the state of Brahman then as humans, we still exist as finite human beings that experience suffering. It is only the state of merging into the unified field (like a drop of water merges back into the ocean) that the experience of suffering dissolves since there is nothing but the bliss of Brahman in every moment to moment experience and we become one with the experienced. Perceiving the world through the lens of the heart is to me the most important thing we can do to know the Truth both within and without.
        with very best wishes

        • March 22, 2015 at 12:21 pm, RoyDopson said:

          1. I can see that in the chicken – egg scenario, you are from the camp that puts the egg of thought coming before the chicken of physicality. This is the only way you could see .5 coming before two. I prefer to use physicality as a starting point for my analogies (everything is analogy). .5 is only an idea. There is no such thing as .5 in the physical realm. It probably doesn’t matter which is put first in relative terms, as the chicken and egg arise simultaneously in the Absolute.

          2. Thought projects the illusion of maya. It is only through SEEING/experience this that one breaks the spell; you can’t think your way out of it. But yes, it can be the pointing finger.

          3. I see desire as the search for Self/Reality. Problems arise when that search is directed outward toward physicality.

          4. I feel that my mirror analogy is saying the same thing you are saying.

          5. There are perhaps subtle differences in what we both mean by “consciousness”. I see consciousness as where Awareness/Self is focused. So I do not see consciousness as the Absolute, but the movement of the Absolute that brings about the appearance of relativity. We are probably seeing the same thing and the terminology used is slightly different

          I completely agree with your final statement.

  5. June 21, 2015 at 4:45 am, One Iam said:

    Zero is the problem. Zero is a bad idea, it’s one that the Mind can’t really entertain. Zero is supposed to be the numeric equivalent to what was before the “Big Bang” (nothing). Well it certainly wasn’t Zero (nothing) It was everything there Is. 1 – 1 = What? Not Zero, it equals the entity with the problem.

Leave a Reply

image description image description

Thanks To Our Sponsors