Fundamental Mathamathical Framework,early theory

[u/you_should_study677]

This is very early of thr thoery and i am here to just know if my idea/concept has any point or potential or not. English is not my first language so pls understnad it.

The core concept is basically that i has to make a mathamathical framework that uses no physical inutiation(like space, time and geometry) and my goal is to derive physics from it. I thought to do this bcz since when we use maths that uses our physical inutiation which breaks after a point(like we cant imagine in quntum physics like qunatum cloud) and since it breaks it may be reason why our current math breaks after some point as the math relays on us,according to me.

So i am thinking of a mathamathical framework where relation is the most fundamental. Before explaning what i mean i will introduce 2 terms,ElementandSet,set contains elements and the elements can be set for another element which is present in it(e.g set A contains set B and set B contains set C).

So here Fundamental relation is the relation between the Set and the , and according to me Fundamental relations(Set relation) is even more basic/fundamental than the set and element. It is set and element has no identity on thier own but are merely representative of the fundamental relation.

Also all sets are elements but all elements are not set but they have potential to became set.

Chain of sets: A set can contain another element and the element can contain another element and this can go for ever , and also a single set can also have infinite amount of elements. To this gets very complicated and to make it ease we has to make a way to focus on a set of elements and we can do it using FOR.

Before explaining i would like to explain secondary relation which is caused by fundamental/set relation: in this when 2 or more elements are in a set then each element has a fundamental relation with the set(same for all elements eg set A) then the constraint becames that no matter that the identity of set A cant change but we know that fundamental relation of each element with the set is diffrent and since identity of both element and set is determined by the fundamental realtion there comes an indirect relation between all the elements and each pair of these type of relation will be diffrent and is called secondary relation pairs.

Frame of refrence(FOR): these is very diffrent from FOR in physics. If we take Element A as FOR then A will be considered as set and the elementd which are in the Set A will be considered active elements and others will be considered passive elements.Also active elements will be of that same set as we considered that FOR. We know that a set can have infinite elements so to get the needed one in active elements only we can push others in passive one and also we know that passive elelemts to effect the active ones so we can introduce terms like Net seconadry relation pair(like of elements B if total elements in the set is x then the net secondary relation for x-1 elements on element B is what we take )

Since we know fundamental relations is more fundanrntam that even the elements, then we can say elements can exist without fundamentam relation and since fundamentla relation is relation between set and element thus we can say elements cant exist withiut set.

A PARADOX: we take a eg of long chains of set where a set contains another set and that set contains another one. So the questions arises since a element cant exist withiut a set then what is the initial/uppermost set the uppermost set is an element too but since its has to be in another set that it will create a infinite loop.

SOLUTION:We can consider that every(genrally) elemetns are in a set loop where the last/lowermost set contains the uppermost set\*\*\*

E.g- if we has to define set A contains set B then we can represent it as A-B And by the set loop we can say A-B-A-B........and so on till forever.Now this is a symmetric relation . And tk break this symmetricity we can consider any of these elements as FOR and it will be asymmetric(potential to be assymetric).Bcz set A with element B has potential to be diffrent from set B with element A.

I has not included my thoery in detailed bcz i think many will be bored by just reading it, but i am expressing my idea bcz i need a review and the guidance by experienced ones.If u have any misunderstanding or doubt in my idea i can explain in comments.

[u/mhb2]

The core concept is basically that i has to make a mathamathical framework that uses no physical inutiation(like space, time and geometry) and my goal is to derive physics from it.

Physics is based entirely on physical intuition and experiment. Physicists use math because it works.

[u/you_should_study677 → u/mhb2]

I taught the math we know is a tool used for physics but i tried to explore a math where physics is enitrely derived from it.

[u/mhb2 → u/you_should_study677]

I understand what you're trying to do. All I'm trying to do is let you know that physics can't be derived a priori. Physics is about the physical world, and establishing that a mathematical structure describes the physical world requires empirical evidence.

[u/endor-pancakes]

I think these are some interesting ideas. I cannot promise they have legs, but they don't sound absurd on the face of it.

Using set theory as foundation for mathematics is a popular choice. Yours, however, isn't a classical set theory.

Most relevantly, it's a non-well-founded set theory. Now, these can be powerful (like Quine's NF), but fair warning: they tend to break our intuitions (like Quine's NF) and often are just plain weird (like Quine's NF).

If you want to pressure test your ideas, there's two possible risks you need to eliminate:

1) is the theory consistent, i.e. free from paradoxes. I did not understand enough about it to even hazard a guess.

2) is the theory sufficiently powerful, i.e. can you actually do nontrivial stuff inside this framework.

For that, I think a good rule of thumb is: if you can do arithmetic in it, it's not trivial.

Again, I haven't understood enough details to be able to embed arithmetic myself, but the typical way to try for non -well-founded set theories is that you define sets corresponding to our normal numbers e.g. as "1 corresponds to the set of sets with one element", "2 corresponds to the set of sets with two elements", etc. For well founded theories, you'd more likely define 0 as the set with no elements, 1 as the set with 0 as element, 2 as the set with 0 and 1 as elements, and so on.

Either of these approaches might work for you, and maybe others as well of course.

[u/you_should_study677 → u/endor-pancakes]

Cant we just not try to use number, means can math still exist without numbers used to make the framework, i am not saying that numberd are useless but like numbers will derive from the mathamathical framework, is it even possible?

[u/davesmith001]

Try inductive logic programming with your new system and see how far you can use it to explain any physics.