This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags. We are sorry about this, but, unfortunately this content has some yellow-flags that historically have usually indicated kinda crackpot-esque material. It's totally plausible that actually this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).
Our solution for now is that we're rejecting this post, but you are welcome to submit posts or comments that are about different topics. If it seems like that goes well, we can re-evaluate the original post. But, we want to see that you're not just here to talk about this one thing (or a cluster of similar things).
»Who decided that the capacity of a natural number had to be absolutely finite? And how is it possible that no one has ever questioned it?"
»Since the beginning, natural numbers have been considered perfectly established entities with well-defined properties, without serious questioning. But who decided that they had to be this way and not otherwise?
»If we cannot justify why natural numbers must be as they are, then the entire current theory is incomplete and arbitrary.
»What if the very existence of a natural number were intrinsically tied to its persistence in time?
»Let’s propose an alternative hypothesis:
Suppose that each natural number is not just a fixed quantity but a structure associated with a unit that persists over time. This unit cannot be eternal within the number, because every finite structure must have a limitation. This leads us to a fundamental question: "What is the rigorous justification for the maximum persistence limit of a unit within a single natural number?"
»Can we really prove that a natural number is independent of time? Or is it merely an artificial construct that assumes its own immutability by convention?
»Is it possible to conceive a theory of numbers that accounts not only for their abstract structure but also for the intrinsic temporal factor in their existence?
»Has anyone explored the relationship between mathematical abstraction and the necessity of time for these very theories to be formulated and, therefore, to exist?
»Natural numbers have not been discovered; they have been imposed as a historical convention. We have always assumed that they form a strict succession of independent values, but if we rigorously analyze their foundation, there is no mathematical reason why this structure must be as it is and not otherwise.
»Why do we assume that natural numbers are a perfect and immutable structure when we have no rigorous proof establishing their real limits?
»Natural numbers have traditionally been conceived as an immutable sequence, but this definition is merely a historical convention, not a fundamental mathematical necessity.
»If we assume that each natural number is the association of a unit with a persistence time within itself, how do we justify that this time has no upper limit?
»Can we prove that this limit does not exist? Or are we instead facing a structural limit that we have not yet been able to recognize?
»And here’s the ultimate question: Can anyone guarantee that mathematical abstraction itself is eternal?
»If you have never questioned this before, what makes you so certain that natural numbers are truly as we have always assumed?
»If we cannot refute this hypothesis, then the current order of natural numbers is not properly founded.