EDI tells Shepard that other dimensions may exist. In these other dimensions, basic principles might be different or non- existent. So, math might be different. Math might be so different that 1+1 might not equal 2, like it does in or universe.

Do not read this post if you do not want to think, or if you don't want a headache.

People like to think about this 1+1=3 because it breaks their perception of reality. 1+1=2 has become a phrase, beyond it’s mathematic nature. 1st graders know it. “How could you not understand? It’s like 1+1=2. It’s simple. Even 1st graders know that.”

But, despite any legitimate support from mathematicians and physicists, the 1+1=3 idea is nothing. Why? Because math is not a basic principle. It is not a fundamental aspect of nature or the physics of the universe. We treat it that way because we are in awe of its reliability and exactness. Don't forget, mathematics and its derivatives were created by humans. Therefore, it can be flawed. I am not saying that it must be flawed because it was created by humans, i'm saying that it is flawed, and therefore it is not a part of nature.

Mathematics is group of numerical concepts and rules created by humans to help explain and predict. Math is used to make skyscrapers. Math is used calculate how much change you receive after paying for your groceries. As I said earlier, it is exact and reliable. Humans view this as powerful and permanent, and some of us foolishly view it as perfection.

1+1=3 is not amazing, or even different. The amazement that comes from it rests in the idea that it is not possible. But it is possible. It is just as possible as 1+1=2. Not at first glance, but I’ll talk about that later (hint: the problem is in the equal sign).

“Wait a minute,” you say in protest, “how?” Math was created by humans. It has purposes like predicting rainfall and measuring in millimeters. But, there are also many types of math. These many types of math exist because one, or even a few, can’t do every job. This makes math necessarily flawed. Because each math type has it purpose, there is also something that it cannot do.

Math is flawed. If you disagree, find out what one- third of 1 is equal to and define it in terms of a decimal, not a fraction (you won’t be able to).

In the old days, whenever a genius mathematician ran into a problem, they developed another mathematical type. But nothing has changed today. The only difference is that today’s mathematicians have wikipedia for researching mathematic principles (and they probably shouldn’t use that anyway). The nature of math is the same. Math is still as incapable and impermanent as it was 400 years ago. We have not, in our supposed modern, infinite knowledge, developed one, completely different set of math that is points out the flaws in all that preceded it and is also capable of answering any question.

So what does this mean? This means that math is only a tool, whose flaws are covered by other types of math that are specifically designed to deal with those flaws. It is not completely based on reality.

That is the important part. It does not have basis in reality. We use it in reality, but it was not derived from reality. It was derived from conceptual thinking. I am not saying math doesn’t work. It does. I am only saying the inherent flaws in math, however many or few, however large or small, prevent it from being a universal or natural principle. So it is a synthetic principle.

And as math was created in our dimension, it can be taken to or created in another dimension. Math does not have basis in the fabric of our reality. So whatever other dimension we are in, it can exist, because the alleged “mathematical inherent properties” that make math possible in our dimension, don’t exist, in kind, don’t exist in another dimension (?). So no matter what dimension we are in, 1+1 still =2, because there were no properties that forced it to be that way to begin with.

----continued in next post