That's one. I don't know if I want to commit to such a broad statement as a claim about the absoluteness of logic, let alone the even wider claim about absolute truth. I'm not one to quote from religion very often, but it was Jesus who said "What is truth? Is your truth the same as mine?", or similar, wasn't it? I actually think I am predisposed to be doubtful about any claimed absolutes. So: no omnimax Gods, no absolute truths, no actual infinities, no perfect people, that kind of thing. They go against the grain for me. I think it's also in part why I'm anti-authoritarian. Some people would regard all this as a character flaw, of course. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for looking a little deeper into my sometimes inadequate presentations. I agree with your entire post....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Philosophically; seems that before latent mathematics become functional and active, there must be an initial dynamical action which still ripples throughout the universal fields as a grand dynamic guiding wave equation or as Bohm likened it to a grand flowing river with infinite ripples and eddies. Only at the moment of a dynamical action, the inherent universal laws of allowed mathematical distribution of energy (information) determine what can become physically expressed and some (a lot) of these mathematical functions are symbolically measurable in our reality. Human cosmology (science) started with "patterns in the sky".
I would say not. I am relieved to find you accept that at least some mathematics is a human invention. Though, as it happens, defining √-1 to be, geometrically, at right angles to the real number line leads to extremely powerful ways of modelling periodic physical phenomena, such as waves, alternating current etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Minimum_complexity_of_a_chaotic_system what does this mean ?
" Thank you. I would never claim that the universe uses any descriptive mathematics. IMO, the universe is mathematical in its very essence. It seems to work that way and was our inspiration for early codifying mathematical patterns such as constellations. And I accept that whereas all of the universe functions mathematically, not all mathematics are universal. It is interesting to know that many animals and even simple organisms have an innate ability for intuitive cognition of quantity, distance, and time, which to me confirms a natural mathematical conditioning (programming) even in non-human life forms. Of course they don't count 1, 2, 3, 4, .... like humans do.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They count rationally as "more of this" and "less of that", which I find truly remarkable in itself. Aahh, yes, I am sure that in our theoretical maths we invent (derive) some equations which are useful in our analyzing specific phenomena, but which are not required in the raw processing of the information. We're getting pretty good at identifying and symbolizing of universal mathematical rules and orderly physical interactions and causalities, but as James said, "but rather that we don't know the "initial conditions" of the problem with sufficient accuracy". i.e. The beginning. After all , humans didn't come on the scene until the middle chapters of the book. And the universe is a big book, still being written, "From Wave to Reality", the greatest story ever told"...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What if - instead of using the word 'mathematical' (which refers to a human invention) - you were to simply say something to the effect of "the universe appears to be emergent from a very limited number of forces". "A limited number of forces" means that, while emergent properties will occur, they won't be all over the place. Quarks make subatomic particles of very limited in variance (all protons are the same, all electrons are the same). Thus results in largest structures, such as atoms of very uniform size, thus they tend to stack with gaps of very similar amounts. This results in macro structures that share a lot of similarities. Same could be said of gravity and EMR. What this is describing is a form of physical order that has a well-defined structure and root cause, but does not resort to human terms such as mathematics and functions and values. It would further your hypothesis greatly if, instead of using existing, well-defined words in clumsy ways, you simply described the patterns themselves.
I have a more lofty view on what humans have termed "mathematical order". IMO, what we have recognized and symbolically represented as Mathematics, including all forms of physical and abstract orderly patterns, we factually learned from a pervasive universal order as abundantly expressed by consistent values, patterns, and functions in natural processes. I submit that the term and definition of Order implies an orderly functional pattern which is "mathematical" in a natural sense. The Platonic Solids are examples. Observable universal geometry is a naturally occurring "mathematical construct" .Why should we have to fill a paragraph devoted to explanations in using the term mathematics. The universe consists of orderly logical patterns and functions. We, humans have observed this order and called it mathematical, i.e. definable in symbolic language. Therefore we recognized and termed the universal orders as mathematical and there is no reason to dispute the use of the term a "mathematical universe" on grounds of exclusive human trademark and property rights.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Human mathematics are derived from observation of a priori extant universal orderly patterns and functions. So we invented a scientific discipline of observation of natural orderly phenomena and gave it a click and grunt , alphabetically spelled as name of a god until scientists came along and said no it's not God it's Mathematical. We're not the center of solar system. It's mathematically not true. The universe came first....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!......the term "mathematical universe" came much much later. The term universe is also a human linguistic construct. Does that mean the universe does not exist unless we describe it? What is the only language the universe seems to functionally "understand"? Waves, wave-functions, wave-lenghts are the common denominator and language (information transmission) of the universe, no? Can't speak that language without mathematics. Well, music is a nice example of a practical mathematical application of the wave function.
We get that. But if you want to actually advance your hypothesis - as opposed to spend the lion's share of your time arguing about the correct meaning of existing words - it might be counterproductive to continually redefine words. Here on a science board, you're not going to make much headway using buzzwords while mangling existing words. The term for that is word salad. It's frowned upon and injures one's credibility. Science is built upon clear, concise, collaborative terminology. That being said, it's certainly your choice as to how you want people to engage with you.
Yes Dave I understand and respect that and is why I never partake in "formal" debates or proposals. I use a conversational style in my presentation and I know I sometimes cram a bunch of qualifying terms together which may tend to confuse the issue. Usually I do try to summarize my sometimes verbose answers in context of the OP. My enthusiasm knows no bounds...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I found this talk fascinating. It's by Dennett on the limitations of the brain to know itself. and is a natural confirmation of Anil Seth's perspective.
Ok, it does have something to do with sound waves, no? https://www.delamora.life/pythagoras/ Sound waves are received by the ear and translated into an experiential event via the wave collapse in the brain and the resulting "harmonics" processed by the "mirror neural system" which evokes a physical chemical reaction to pleasing harmonies or to unpleasant harmonies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hence "relaxing music" and "exciting music" dependent on the skillful and emotional application of music theory. A common application in music is "building emotional suspense and ultimate emotional release. A beautiful example can be found in this little jazz masterpiece "Django" by the Modern Jazz Quartet. The piano solo by its author John Lewis is so emotionally expressive, I tear up every time I listen to it's simple melancholy in memory of the great guitarist Jean "Django" Reinhardt. A fitting tribute to a great master. What I find most curious is how the brain can represent the frequency of wavelengths longer than the brain itself.
WTF is that supposed to mean? Average length of a brain ~ 15 cm VHF EM radiation wave length ~ 1m The lines above are curious to you????Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, music is to do with sound waves, produced by standing waves set up in the instruments that make the sound. Not wave functions, which are - sigh, we've done this so many times already - mathematical expressions for describing a quantum state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND. ?
Just don't let him see a picture of the ocean, or he'll start wondering if beach erosion is caused by the wave function.
Indeed. What he does is use the wrong term in order to drag in quantum woo in relation to macroscopic phenomena. I think it is semi-deliberate, actually.
ive watched online news clips by several physicists talk about the sun making noises. the noise recorded at the north pole during an aurora is quite interesting.
I presume this speaking figuratively, given that the sun is separated from us by millions of miles of space. What do they mean? Can you provide a reference?
