Epa universal certification practice test

When theorising in astrophysics, and more specifically the beginning and expansion of the universe (the big bang), the phenomenon of black holes and the mysteries behind dark matter and dark energy, we mistakenly use the two concepts interchangeably, they being 1. The philosophical zero, ie nothingness, and 2. The mathematics concept of zero, ie summarily attaching the philosophical concept of zero, with a numerical designation because it greatly assists the functionality of mathematic in the paradigm of our observable reality. Also please bearing mind the the math concept of zero allows negative values, unlike the philosophy, and when discussing space time, there is no place for negative numbers. Now that said and made clear, I believe it impossible for us to attempt to explain the unimaginable, without separation and distinction of the two concepts when infinity is brought into the conversation. Infinity, like zero, is a philosophical concept not all that dissimilar to zero, it has a mathematical conceptual basis also, but unlike the philosophical zero ie nothingness, it is given a numerical designation that more accurately relates to it philosophically, even though it is not strictly a number and cannot he used in any tangible calculation, mathematics certainly allows for its philosophical manifestation into mathematical equations.
I see this as a huge conflict, especially as it the very essence of big bang theory ie from nothing came infinity at the moment of the big bang. We surely cannot hope to solve this puzzle if the universe if we are conceptually flawed at he very starting point. 0 and infinity therefore cannot be used together in any calculation because we haven't yet reconciled the two conceptually. How can we look at this differently? How can we navigate passed mathematical dogma a concepts our brains are not capable of truly understanding on a practical level?
These are very tough existential and philosophical problems. So rather than just critise the current order and point out what I see as conflicts, but offer no alternative, may I suggest at least a starting point for discussion and exploration which may be found in the area of fractal science/mathematics. And a good place to focus the beginning of any theoretical discourse, in my opinion would be the work of, amoung others, Mandelbrot and the set named after him, the Mandelbrot Set. I suggest this because it mathematically the most relevant area of a field and is largely avoided by the popular culture's interest in fractals which is largely forcused on aesthetical beauty, particularly popular with the psychedelic subculture which I believe has a place and time to be investigated as a part of the whole discussion, but maybe for now should not be a point of focus in fear of contaminating a sterile discussion with with larger philosophically arguments about what is reality, due to the psychedelic substance insights of those schools. To incorporate any talk of altered states of consciousness, may be counter productive at this time. Hence my Mandelbrot suggestion achieves the mathematical parameters I believe are the best for theoretical mathematical support and cancels out the annoying noise that the fractal science field makes due to its attractiveness to non mainstream pop culture.
The Mandelbrot set is intriguing, not only because of the almost mindblowing graphical capability of AI, for as the Mandelbrot set seen by AI and then visualised for us to see, is nothing short of unbelievably beautiful. It also has an ability to provoke inner hought and discourse without one knowing the subject, topic or reason for the quiet peaceful internal discourse it inspires. I mention this, not because it can directly be incorporated in the radical discussion, but experiencing the astonishlng complexity if its beauty and the way it continues infinitely (or rather as long as it continues to be observed) because if the very self contained nature of the Mandelbrot set. After all, the mandelbrit set is simply a set of numbers, that when placed in the equation, do not spiral out into infinity. The equation value is always >0 or <2. So what as I see as irony, as the set was designed to avoid infinity in a sense, what it actually does is provide us with the best possible conceptualisation, in practice and theory, of a model demonstrating infinity. Even more bizarre is that the technology had only recently become available to show us visually by AI graphing. I'm not sure without the visual stimulus, could we have seen how beautifully fractal science demonstrates its potential unravelling existential and theoretical mysteries. I believe it lends itself perfectly to my proposed theory.
I think so because infinity is difficult for the human mind to grasp, some may say impossible. What is even more difficult for our minds to grasp is infinity of reducted values. Basically, if infinity can exist in an expanding sense, then it is not a stretch of conceptualisation to think it can infinitely get smaller. This breaks no rules of science. Searching for the building block of the universe has been crusade of quantum physicists dating back to the creation of the scientific theory. Much money and effort has been spent in search for smaller and smaller still subatomic particles. What they do is fractal science in its purest form, yet like with the study of Theoretical Astrophysics, quantum science theory is its self hampered by the concept if zero as a number, in my opinion. Even doing the work of factually reducing matter, they are blinded to its possible futility, should fractal reduction does forever decend in to fractal infinity or -ve infinity. For if that is the case, maybe quantum theory is in fact mankind's first exploration, albeit unknowingly, into what may well be a black hole. That is for a later discussion but certainly worth bringing to the attention for the purposes of this discussion.
So if we can accept that -ve infinity is as equally viable and logical as +ve infinity, what room in this discussion is left for the inclusion of zero?
I believe this leaves no room for zero in the same conversation as infinity. I am not suggesting zero should be stricken from mathematics. However I am suggesting that mathematics use of zero may, invalidate is ongoing use as an effective tool for measurement and communication, when the subject is beyond our ability to comprehend. Few people will argue that our 6 senses are significantly lacking the capacity to comprehend cosmological dynamics. Mathematics nothing more than an application of our 6 senses, to make sense of the chaos occurring all around us. Over hundreds and thousands of years, this is the best we have been able to do in terms of calculation and accurate prediction of future occurances. Even the concept of zero is less than 1000 years old. The Romans saw no use in incorporating it into their model, and to this day we wonder at their and other ancient civilisations ability for astonishing accuracy in measurement and prediction. Look at all they, the Egyptians and others managed without using zero in a single calculation. We can also break this down out of our conscious paradigm into nature. Numbers do not exist in nature (that includes the universe). It begs the question of do numbers really exist? Are numbers no more than part of our delusional reality? Who knows, but one thing is for sure, zero certainly doesn't exist anywhere outside of our consciousness. Not even in our own very bodies. How bodies clearly hold a knowledge that hasn't seemed to be passed over to our conscious, aware selves. Even on the smallest scale, without any intervention or guidance from any sort of intelligence, within our cellular membranes. Complex calculations are constantly being carried out. Consider cellular replication for example. In order for a cell to divide successfully, there must be a correct allocation of resources, let's just say primarily energy distribution for the sake of brevity. To split a cell but calculate the energy necessary to simply cary put the force of splitting. It must also calculate how much energy needs to be transfered to the new cell. This calculation must include how much energy for it take to replicate all cellular matter, how much energy is required for both cells to recover from the trauma, and how much energy on top of that, the new cell will require to become mature and begin its own replication. There are multiple complex calculations to be made there, and they then must be combined in to an overall and more complicated calculation again. All of this is done without intelligence and without using numbers ie mathematics. This same process can be observed all the way back to the very first beginning of not just life, but biochemistry in general. So I hope this demonstrates that the universe doesn't exist numerically. There are no rules in the universe. We created rules for our sciences, because if we didn't follow them the sciences would fail at unacceptable percentage of predictions
So we make rules to overcome the shortcomings while waiting for future technologies or fixes. Mathematics and sciences are little more than a carefully ordered tapestry of rules, with too many exeptions for too many rules. We create rules and ideas to assist the conteived & malfunctioning intangible thing to not have to go to all the trouble of finding something that works better. We are just littered with examples through every field. Like 'zero', or Pi, or "bimdas" (brackets, indicies, multiply, division, addition and subtraction. I find this a good example, for not following this exact order of calculations, a correct answer to equation will nev a result) and thousands of others.
No rules exist in nature, it appears to be that it just is, always will be and always has been.
So in summary, given our restrictions on trying to understand the universe, namely intelligence, our 6 limited senses, our arrogance and our mortality, should we narrow the pursuits our restrictions can make us comfortable with? Thisbwilk lead us nowhere.
By abandoning zero as the only accepted scientific approach to the universe, and allowing science to have multiple validating throeries for what is the same problem. The scientific community abhors divergence from dogma and academics are held to ransom with funding or being published, if their ideas are not with acceptable parameters.
But for the sake of this conversation, can we discuss the merits of looking at the big bang without reference to nothing ie zero, but instead +ve and -ve infinity."