A process that allows formal logic to be used to derive physics.

[@patsk8872]

... K. Now I can see why it's important for fringe theorists to either 1.) follow concrete reasoning VERY carefully, and/or 2.) have demonstrable results from their theories. If your conjecture is that physics can be derived a priori via mathematics, you'd need to demonstrate it. I can think of a historical example of the OPPOSITE - Newton inventing calculus in order to solve known problems in physics. Rather than developing calculus in a vacuum and then applying it to physics later. I assume you are familiar with E8 lattice theory. It's my understanding that a lot of "arbitrary" physical constants fall out of relationships of the E8 lattice, although I have yet to see a clear video demonstrating how. Perhaps you should focus on that? And here's some of my own "fringe" ideas that always intrigued me. Why are there so many situations of duality in physics such as electron pairs, matter and antimatter, electricity and magnetism. And are any of these an indication of extradimensionality? For example, do electrons always "pair" because one extrudes slightly "up" and the other "down" into some other dimension (which may be a tightly confined dimension rather than our normal 3D space?) Could matter be converted to antimatter and vice versa if it were pulled out of our spacetime and rotated through an extra dimension?

[@howtoscienceandmath]

Thank you for your comment. the axioms of calculus are perfectly consistent with all physical phenomena when analyzed on "the proper structure". To clarify, calculus is developed using the logic L in the video, and thus everything on the FE is consisten with it.

[@sethkunert6234]

I am going to edit this as the video progresses so I can keep track of an expand on individual points. 0:30 you appear to loosely reference the first postulate of relativity: constancy of observations, and reproducibility of experimentation being physical truth. 1:30 I think your logic when expressed in most simple form would be something like U/L=B*FE and FE*L=B U+Fe= L²+B Observations of the fundamental structure equal the sciences derived as the imposed structures. 2:00 Math and physics are distinct. Physics applies or abstracts a relationship between the patterns of self proving math (or pure math) to real observations we assume are constant in similar pattern. 4:00 So... what? I think you need to study pure mathematics. Every mechanism is theoretically defined in string theory and physics as applied math short cuts the process to abstract fundamentally accepted relationships between observations and pure math. I personally find a huge issue to be that abstractions in math are so fundamental to the process it is no longer part of dialogue. Higher algebra used to be called abstract algebra. It's just so fundamental they only talk about it in math history. 4:30 Vacuum has no properties.

[@howtoscienceandmath]

Thank you for the comment. One postulate of relativity is that the speed of light is constant. I think a distinction should be made between what is real and what is measured. Our observations have to be true, and the underlying reality can operate however it does as long as the observation is producable. You should look at the 1-D Entity Theorem in the Laws of Existence. It proves that if math is assumed true by using it, the strings in ST can't be distinguishable from non-existence. Thus ST can be eliminated from consideration. You should read the article linked in the video. A vacuum definately has properties, hence why particles emerge from it.