Thread: the mathematics of anatomy

If it were not for my understanding of Medicine, I would not have introduced myself to the possibility of considering that there exists a space-time code of perception-consciousness.

I studied Medicine to the level of knowing all pre-clinical theory, basically the big-3: anatomy, biochemistry, physiology. I paid particular attention to developing a GENERAL STRUCTURE of understanding RELEVANT to an overall holistic code of perception of the body throughout the entire tuition that lasted 4 and half years in total. To keep the general structure as simple as possible, I learnt Medicine in focusing on the 7-tiered structure of biological function, namely the 7 key-different systems of the body: neurological-nervous, cardiovascular, immunological-lymphatic, respiratory, gastro-intestinal, uro-genital/reproductive, and musculoskeletal. I sought a common theme of “perception” to those systems, a common theme of operation, of being conscious, of allowing the body to function as a consciousness in a holistic manner. What also was of use to me was an understanding of embryology, how the foetus develops, all the folding processes-steps of that matter-perception. Because I was not interested in being a clinical doctor, because I was only interested in the actual theory of biological sciences, I decided to remove myself from the clinical years, and hence did not complete the degree. Yet, I had enough wisdom accumulated to then pioneer a path towards the actual code of perception, the space-time construct that would represent our ability to be aware. My study of Genetics was of great assistance also, that common code found in our cellular material. But, I was looking for something more common to us all, a type of mathematical code to our ability of perception. Medicine was such a DIFFICULT course to study, I basically sought the simplistic database “mantra” of awareness to remember it in. Hence, ultimately, the search for a type of mathematical code.

I believe I have found a mathematical code, simple at that, of our ability to be conscious, alive, biologically functioning. Click onto my website and download the 5MB download if any of you are interested.

Does anyone else think these things are REALLY annoying?

You forgot endocrine

You suggest my posts are annoying and then you beckon a response. I classed endorcrine, at the time of my study, as a secondary system. The endocrine system I felt was secondary to the nervous system. I am not going to argue it is not important.

I think you may be refusing to argue the point because you dont know any better.

If you dont understand endorine how can you claim to understand biochemistry especially metabolism.
How can you claim to understand renal function or the GIT if you dont understand the hormones influencing their function.

And in particular how can you claim to have found a mathematical theory of anatomy if you dont appreciate the effect hormones have on its evelopment and structure, and how can you possibly have come up with a mathematical theory of awareness if you dont appreciate how this changes by blood hormone levels. And finally how can you claim the endocrine is secondary to the nervous system when (i) there is such an intimate connection between the function of each of them & (ii) an neuron is merely an altered endocrine cell.

I apologize for misleading you. The endocrine system i had worked into my way of studying Medicine as representing the hormonal-glandular system, which basically spanned all the other systems. I could explain that further but I fear you may misinterpret me. As for the mathematics of anatomy, um, I don't think I painted a clear enough picture to have you briefed sufficently on what I meant. Once again, you would probably misinterpret me. I give a better explanation on the 5MB download found at my website. Briefly here though, by the "mathematics of anatomy" I was making a very basic if not simplistic picture alluding to a "mathematics of perception".

When we are conscious, we are not aware of each of the different systems of the body except for one system, well, we to be more precise we are aware in an overall holistic manner. My task was to find the code of that overall structure. The endocrine system as a study basically affects every other system. I called it a secondary system, because it if were a primary system it would be the only primary system, making all the other systems secondary. Actually, i had the endocrine system as the 8th system of study, but owing to it's complex structure and involvement, I kept things simple. Anyway, to cut to the point I am trying to make, I eventually realized that the overall format of the mathematics of perception basically was closest to the endocrine system, because the endocrine system, together with the neurological system, is/are the most holistic systems of perception. My book explains it better, although it doesn't focus too much on the endocrine system, mainly the sensory-motor nuerological system. The endocrine system, as you well pointed out, is the drive of the biochemistry and physiology sciences.

point I am trying to make, I eventually realized that the overall format of the mathematics of perception basically was closest to the endocrine system, because the endocrine system, together with the neurological system, is/are the most holistic systems of perception.

That makes quite a change to your first statement, has your formula change since I started commenting?

The endocrine system as a study basically affects every other system. I called it a secondary system, because it if were a primary system it would be the only primary system, making all the other systems secondary.

But if your taking a holistic approach as you mentioned before wouldnt this make it very important to your study. And the endocrine is not an exception. The heart's function is to pump blood to all other tissues, the lungs to supply oxygen, th kidneys to regulate blood composition, the endocrine is no different in this respect; it gives instructions to various tissues on how to behave.[/quote]

Basically, the endocrine system affects the general "growth" and "development" and homeostasis of the body. I have moved on though from medicine.

Correct me if i am wrong on any of the following:

The concept of mathematics is the employing the use of numbers to explain phenomena of space and time, very generally. Numbers are basically used as the cogs to explain space-time, especially in physics.

Is, could it, be possible that the very "symbol" of a number can be used to represent a space-time concept. Take "1" for instance. Can "1" be used to symbolize a unit length between two points? Of course it can.

I am now going to propose something very abstract. If "1" represented a unit distance between two points, and if then those two points were to meet, essentially taking the "1" and bending it to the shape of a "0", could then the process of using the "1" as the unit distance between two points whereby the process of using that "1" was to make it a "0" such that the points meet, and technically there is zero distance between the points, can that "0" that results as the absence of distance between the two points be associated to the "1" in a type of mathematical equation explaining that process?

The concept I am presenting is basically taking "1" and "0" and explaining what type of process of space and time, point to point distance (1) and folding (0), can actually have "1" and "0" explain precisely what they are symbolizing.

Subsequently, I have developed a mathematical algorithm that uses that definition of point-point "1" and "0" to then propose an ultimate 0_1 equation as a type of order of two points and a line. Basically, to add a feature of "infinity" into that equation and assess what the ultimate arrangement of points and lines would be.

No, my mathematical algorithm hasn't changed, I am just finding it very difficult to explain owing to it's very abstract nature.

What experience do you have in maths, Im guessing not very much if it took you 4 and a half years to learn preclinical medicine.

4 and a half years in pre-clinical medicine is standard. The course is 6 years, actually the complete degree. I studied the complete degree except the final year and community medicine in the penultimate year, I studied a bit.

As for mathematics, well, standard high school top line stuff. The thing though I am trying to explain is that with my mathematical algorithm, I have developed a mathematical algorithm that uses that definition of point-point "1" and "0" to then propose an ultimate 0_1 equation as a type of order of two points and a line. Basically, to add a feature of "infinity" into that equation and assess what the ultimate arrangement of points and lines would be.

Basically, I have developed a mathematical algorithm that explains the most LOGICAL way to organize together a system of lines, strings of points. The fascinating thing is that in using this algorithm I have been able to derive the equations of a sphere-circle (volume, surface area, circumference), a theory for pi, together with a model for the atom. I found that interesting. I used a new calculus to derive the equations of a sphere, among other things. I don't know whether or not it is relevant to have a degree in mathematics if I am presenting a NEW mathematical code.

Maybe you can suggest something.

From what I hear university mathematics is VERY different to high school. Im in medical school myself but was able to skip the first year; its only between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 years preclinical.

I have no idea why you have come up with a mathematical formula or how it is even vaguely related to consciousness/perception or whatever it is you're trying to prove and very much doubt you have considering you have posted a similar thread in practically every forum on this site in a different context each time. I suggest you go onto the maths forum and discuss your idea to see if it is remotely valid before spamming the rest of the forums.

I understand that high school mathematics is different to university mathematics (my brother is in his final year of University mathematics....we chat....and even he even knows my mathematical algorithm is different, but I haven't shown him the theory owing to a difficult time he is already having in his final year).

Why I came up with a mathematical algorithm that explains perception. Well, if you had noted in the mathematics section "spam" I explained why a theory of perception was needed, namely to act as a reference, a solid reference, when viewing the mathematical twisting of the number "1".

As for all the spamming criticism I have recieved, to say the theory lies between a rock and a hard place is sheerly understating it's uniqueness. Owing to how new it is, unconventional, outside the "university square" so to speak, I actually DON'T KNOW where to post it. So, as I have explained to another irate chatter, that I have focussed on the three main sections of mathematics, physics, and biology-medicine. I apologize if I have disturbed this site's feng shui.

What field of Medicine do you think you want to head into?

Indeed, and don't all reply at once.

I am presenting a CASE for people to intelligently respond to. I am presenting the different and relevant angles for people to offer some type of reflection on the theory I am presenting.

I am beginning to believe that SPAM is in the eye of the disinterested beholder. Anything not "relevant" to an observor appears to evoke the word SPAM.

I thought forums allowed for a diversity and uniqueness of debate?

I am beginning to believe that SPAM is in the eye of the disinterested beholder. Anything not "relevant" to an observor appears to evoke the word SPAM.

You have posted the same bloody thread up about 10 times, 6 of which are on the Mathematics forum, all of which say the same thing, none of which say anything and virtually none of which people have replied to. SPAM!

I thought forums allowed for a diversity and uniqueness of debate?

You're not really providing any type of debate, your just throwing out abstract terms to describe how you have put it, an abstract idea which you consistently fail to articulate on.
Every forum you post it on is in a totally different context in order to suit the forum. I dont see how this remotely has any relevance to biology.

As for the argument as to why 1 is 1, that is axiomatic, not for debate at least not in mathematics, go argue about it with a philosopher.
Why 0 is 0, same reason, if your theory is constructed on arguing about either of those facts I doubt it will go far.

If you are going to present your theory for debate on the forum at least provide something to discuss, dont just throw out the random meaningless material you have on each forum so far.

I could have just posted the one thread, I guess.

I guess you must seem quite the authority in telling me the road rules.

Have you not anything else better to do.

Move on.

Get over it.

Develop a bedside manner for once.

Maybe the reason why people haven't replied yet is because they are still going over the pdf they have decided to download.

Why is 1 "1".

Axioms, axioms, axioms.

I agree.

That is why at the beginning of my thesis i outline that I use a NEW SET of mathematical axioms.

I don't even think you've downloaded the pdf to check out what i am referring to.

I guess you are also going to try to convince me that the axioms mathematics and physics use will nevr DEVELOP in the future. If that is the case, enjoy the 12% of the brain you use without much more development than that.

May therefore mathematics define itself, so too perhaps science, as what it is, and any NEW USE of the number system superior to what is currently used be termed something ELSE other than mathematics. May even physics change it;s title if a new set of standards are adopted to better describe space-time.

Why be such a suck though.

Maybe you are also going to tell me that any development in the axioms of mathematics and physics, if not biololgical sciences that employ the use of mathematics and physics, as will more strongly be the case in the future with our growing interest in genetics, must come by the permission of philosophers.

Boo Hoo., I pity you.

POP QUIZ, what am I actually highlighting?

A biologist, would be doctor, actually suggesting that philosophers hold all the keys to axiomatic development of the mathematics and sciences?

Why be so lame?

Stand up for your own profession's ability to be revolutionary......at least challenge the axioms you use, use dah-forebrain.

If you had actually DECIDED to download my pdf, the reason why I decided to post my work on a medical site with the explanation i gave, is because i chose to use Medicine as my axe, not mathematics, not philosophy, not science, MEDICINE. I chose MEDICINE to be the doorway to introduce myself, my experience, and the new axiomatic theory of numbers. I was honoring medicine. But then again, a medical freshman like you hasn't really earnt his stripes of respect for your chosen profession yet. You do though aim to defend well what you are taught, yet leaving axiomatic change-development to philosophy i find a little weak. Medicine offers FAR MORE reason for FACT than philosophy. If you had read my pdf, you would realize that the 0-1 mathematical code CAME FROM, and thankfully so, my understanding of MEDICINE.

Are there any other Doctors out there who would like to see philosophy supercede Medicine in definining mathematical and scientific foundation? WHY. Why be mentally WEAK.

Did we not learn to count, for instance, in using our FINGERS, 1 to 10. Did not the decimal system begin that way, FROM BIOLOGY. I think I may have read that somewhere. Why therefore would it be absurd to dethrown biology, our biology, from true mathematical axiom number systems?

Give me a break.





Best of luck anyway.

4 replies! Wow, I feel quite privileged!

Surely if its your site you'd know if people were downlading the pdf, I tried but an outlook express window opened up.
Im in the middle of exams so as for nothing betterto d... you know yourself, I do but dont want to do it!

As for the axiomatic discussion, you can see there are hundreds of threads on the site about people questionging infinity between 0 and 1 and what each of those mean (you've creates quite a few of them yourself!) but they're more philosophical questions as they are merely cyclical logic that doesnt go anywhere, maths is built upon accepting 0,1, 1+1=2 etc and follows that logic, it doesnt question it to too great a degree as it is the very foundation of the subject.

I really still dont know how maths has anything to do with medicine or how your medical education lead t a mathematical discovery. Of course biology has a mathematical relationship with maths, but only so far.

I understand what it's like going through a degree, and that was biggest concern, namely that those i would be showing my pdf to wouldn't have the time.

The download button is seperate to the "?", yet they ARE close (and I am trying to fix that).

As for cyclical logic, once again, you are absolutely right. That was the thing that worried me in pursuing the theory, a "repeating code". But the thing I found interesting about the repeating code was when I incorporated "perception" into the equation. By incorporating the concept of sensory and motor "functions" labelled with zero and infinity relevant to the "1-0" algorithm, I found the repeating sequence, the cyclical logic, took on a far more profound structure.

The book basically, as you highlighted, would have been meaningless as a cyclical algorithm, but I used that theoretical cyclical algorithm as the code of our stream of consciousness, and then I labelled the basic feature of our perception, the features of "sensation" and "motor", to then explain HOW the human mind would PERCEIVE with that algorithm.

Try the site again, straight on the download button, but not if you are already in the middle of something. Even my brother can't read it because he is up to his head in work.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

I read it, I would not give you the lab; you're asking for people more qualified than you to produce a device which you dont actually know what it does!
I think it is based on GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING, again cyclical logic producing cyclical mathematics where you want it, and non cyclical where it doesnt suit,
there isnt very much maths, its all you're perception of infinity and how infinity can equal zero (which is such an error I dont know where to start.) And you just ruined decartes maths.

I suggest you go read about Godel's incompleteness theorem, that should get you thinking, he came up with logical errors to einstein's theories which apperently make them impossible, that could be a start.

You're fast, faster than me.

It was 300 pages, right?

Anyway, yes, I presented the idea of the wheel within a wheel construction, and no I am refraining from providing the precise specs of that craft. It is explained in the midsection of the book anyway. I am debating the patent issue currently.

As for my qualification in physics, you say you know what I was looking for anyway. To be honest, I was looking for only 5% of what i found. I learnt MORE about physics from the theory than physics. I have cross-checked contemporary theories of physics with the things I wasn't even looking for and they match.

Anyway, best of luck with your exams........read the paper completely, whatever you do, the exam paper.

Just quickly, zero time, time that doesn't pass. If you are OBSERVING zero time, like you haven't already equated perception into the theory of time, your perception, and you are watching time that doesn't pass, you are watching a frozen time piece. You are watching a frozen time piece indefinitely (you stare into the abyss long enough and it stares back at you, right?....sorry). But yet, time appears to be involved with your perception, right. (still, you are very acute).

Same with infinite space, space that is endless. If you observe space that is endless, no limits, "define" then exactly what you are defining.........it if goes infinitely on.........YOU CAN'T DEFINE IT, and thus it may as well be nothing, a nothing that permeates everything.

Is that too mind-bending?

Still, good insights to a few features of the theory.

THE OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL (all space, all time)


This is the tough one.

In the book, I began by assuming that our perception was separate to reality, that modern science is correct in not involving a theory of perception into space and time.

I then said time that doesn’t pass, as observed, well, we would watch it and watch it and watch it, if indeed there is no time associated to our perception, as science would believe in not including our perception in theories of time.

I then also said that in being aware of infinite space, well, if space permeates everything, and we have to involve our perception in that, but clearly can’t, technically, in not being able to define the limits of space for us to be aware around of, then it is nothing space.

In both counts, zero space and infinite space, and zero time as infinite time.

Then I said the purpose that faced us was for that scheme to gobble up our perception, for us to INCORPORATE into that reality our perception, for our perception to be labeled with that reality we have all come to accept care of modern science.

Some would argue that in then applying that scheme to our perception, involving our perception with that scheme, we are invalidating it. Because in involving our perception in time that doesn’t pass, our perception would not pass either, and thus we also would have no perception. But we ARE aware, we have a perception. Thus, the way to accept that is that we are “immortal”, we are as immortal as time itself, that we are the process of time moving, and thus in moving with and as time, we would not register its passage. The same exists with the way to be aware of all space, of infinite space, we would have to be OMNIPRESENT, all space. In being omnipresent, yet not being aware of time passing, in having no boundaries, in being un-defineable, we are as nothing, space is as nothing. Or even on another scale, if our perception is omnipresent, space would be the thing that is rendered as NOTHING.

Take time to think about this.

This is a GOD CODE, it seems. A code associated with the “two points as one” algorithm.

And this is the difficult thing to present, the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL PERCEPTION CONSTRUCT that PERCEIVES reality for what has been described in my pdf download.

It’s worthy of sharing, the TRUTH of reality.

Basically, combining the zero-infinity space-time scheme with perception creates the OMNIPRESENT IMMORTAL construct. That’s what this theory has actually achieved, in theory.

Please return to the book if you were instructed to come here by your doubts.

These are philosophical questions you are asking, infinite time... why does everything bother to exist, what is existence, observing is a physiological process, it takes time to do so in 0 time, you would observe nothing.

You're looking for answers that dont exist in mathematics, maths is just a manmade construct.

Perception and reality are related but not the same,
take pain for example, one can perceive pain without there being any real cause similarly, some people dont experience pain when in reality there should be.

The body is a construct of space-time.

It is "matter".

It is ALSO perception.

Instead of getting lost, because 1000's of ideas begin to surface with conversations like this, like bubbles surfacing indicative that we are sinking and trying to breathe under water.........."zero" and "infinity" describe horizon's in reality we can never reach, but in theory "can". I think the 0 and infnity "horizon" is like God, the unreacheable, the thing always too far ahead...........

What I have found in playing with 0 and infinity with space and time is that there is a type of ORDER that permeates space and time, suggesting that certian features, codes, laws of space and time will, in all probability, NEVER CHANGE, and in NEVER CHANGING, THEY represent the IMMEDIATE, the ZERO, that can never be described, and the infinite........the forever continuation of the forces.

Science ARGUES that they find FACTS relevant to FORCES they believe are set in stone.