Can "Infinity" ever be more than a mathematical abstraction?

According your your logic there is nothing abstract as everything is of our world. We don't see atoms, we see trees, people, etc. therefore atoms are somewhat abstract. If you reduce them to quarks that is even more abstract. If you reduce them to mathematics, that's pretty abstract.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in the bits called "English" (its a subject) were you paying much attention or just copying the cheat sheets to get a pass mark ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't have to take classes in how to understand English as that is my native language. I take it, it's not yours?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes and that no matter how you look at it, it is an ad hominem....get it?

The point is, one cannot inadvertently tell a lie....a lie is by definition a purposeful act. If you were not accusing me of a purposeful falsehood then your use of the word lie was incorrect.
Get it?
You were just plain wrong in the use of that term unless you meant it as an ad hominem and no there is no way to wiggle your way out of this.

Just admit it, and we'll be done.

 

I read that as; "our physical world is an abstract structure of mathematical values" .
What is a physical thing viewed from its fundamental properties?
I could be wrong but it makes sense to me, yet I don't feel comfortable with that.

 

Anil Seth reduces it even more. He claims that our experience of realityis actually a "best guess" of what's out there. A form of "controlled hallucination" to begin with.

 

You can make a valid argument on both sides of this argument. Is there a real world out there or is it just in our heads? Yes, and yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is a real world out there that exits even if we were not here and the world that we see out there, we see as interpreted in our head so it's not absolutely accurate.

Of course, someone will come along and ask "What do you mean by "in our head"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree, if we could observe the world only as sets of mathematical values, how would that account for the physicalness such as momentum and force.
Much as I like the elegant simplicity of Tegmark's mathematical Universe, I have a hard time accounting for the apparent real physical nature of these mathematical constructs.
Can a mathematical value be a physical object or is it just that physical objects have mathematical values? Or is it both, a form of duality, one gives meaning to the other?

 

I think the only reason that he is interested in this question, it's certainly the only reason I have any interest in this is that it means that some questions may be answerable that otherwise might not be.

For instance, we can't know what was before the Big Bang, or we can't know if there are other Universes or any other "big" questions almost by definition. However, if we determine that everything is mathematical in nature then an equation that is testable in most of its predictions and yet predicts something that we can't test (another Universe) may still provide answers to those "unanswerable" questions.

Ultimately, it's not so important for everything to be resolved as being only mathematical as it is to find out that everything is mathematically describable.

 

this is kinda the question i attempted to pose about the nature of measurement as a cross field application in science to suggest a potential to see if it possible to establish a vague concept of the quantity of known~unknown.

probably a question that can only be raised in a closed conversation between mathamaticians & quantum(& particle) physicists

 

The notion of abstractedness only applies to concepts and ideas and words. You can talk of an abstract or a concrete description for example. The notions of democracy, love, epistemology and logic are all abstract notions. The notions of polling station, sexe, learning and contradictory statement are all more concrete.
The notion of concreteness applies both to concepts, ideas and words, and to objects. Nouns such as "flower" and "rain" are concrete nouns. And we will also talk of concrete objects such as trees. There are no abstract objects unless you count such things as numbers among actual objects, i.e. things that exist in the world out there, outside our minds. I hope you see the difference between potential abstract objects such as numbers and very real concrete object such as atoms, quarks and such. And the question isn't about whether they exist or not. It's about what we mean with these words. The notion of an abstract physical universe is nonsense unless you could articulate what you mean by that.

You think that's what Tegmark maint?! The phrase "Our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure" just means we can't see it?! We can't see the physical world?!
Please explain.
EB

 

I have already explained to you why it's not. An ad hom is a dismissal of someone's argument on the grounds that he's a liar (in general). I caught you telling a falsehood. While I probably incorrectly assumed that you did that on purpose, me calling you out on that is not an ad hom. If it were, your accusation several posts later that I was trolling is an ad hom too. Are you going to admit to that then? You have to, in order to remain consistent!

But this is not what we're discussion right now, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?

Exactly, so the sentence fragment "purposely telling a lie" contains the redundant word "purposely", because that's already contained in the part "telling a lie". That was my point.

Obviously I have "gotten it" many posts ago. I don't know why you keep bringing this up?

Something which, technically, you haven't demonstrated, even though I asked you to. We're just going on your word that you didn't intent to tell a falsehood.

False. I though you were competent enough to understand what you wrote, and thus came to the conclusion you were lying. Clearly, my assumption was wrong.

Calling somebody out when you actually think they are lying isn't an ad hom.

Says the person trying to wiggle his way out of explaining why he told an obvious falsehood, or explain why he admitted he was trolling a couple of posts afterwards.

Why should I admit to something that is incorrect, so you can then don't have to explain why you told an obvious falsehood, or explain why you admitted you were trolling a couple of posts afterwards? You are a terrible negotiator; you have to create a win-win scenario in order to get someone to compromise.

 

I take it that Tegmark meant what he actually said; "the universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties."

IMO that means we also only have mathematical properties and as such we are completely comfortable in a mathematical world, as we would be if we were completely integrated into a computer simulation.

As I understand it, he claims that the laws of physics are the same in a computer program as they are in the real world. Thus in an abstract mathematical world we could mathematically weigh 150 lbs and when a flowerpot falls on our head it would follow the same gravitational laws as it would in the real world andwe would feel the impact just as we would in the physical world.

IOW, if everything is experienced in the abstract as purely mathematical we would not know the difference. Question is if that can be really true?

An interesting question is if an equation can know it's an equation?

 

I know what Tegmark's "mathematical structure" means, and it's definitely not anything like your "(abstract) structure of mathematical values".
Maybe you know better what Tegmark means than he does himself but I doubt it.
What you would need to explain is how something concrete like the physical world could be "abstract".

I suppose that if we knew the "fundamental properties" of the physical world we would know what is the physical world.

Maybe it makes sense to you, but you haven't explained what sense exactly.
EB

 

How could we possibly know that?
It seems to be a non-falsifiable theory and therefore not a scientific one.

Not necessarily, no. You would have to prove first that we are an integral part of the physical world.
Still, assuming we are, does it feel to you that pain and colours and smells and what it feels like to have thoughts in your mind are things that only have mathematical properties?!
Me, I don't even know what that could possibly mean. You also need to explain that.
EB

 

To understand abstract mathematical structures, see this;

 

Well, yes.

At its most fundamental level all experiences are quantum events, which when a quantum threshold is passed, there occurs an actual physical change, a "bing" as Stuart Hameroff (anesthesiologist) and Roger Penrose (you know his name) describe a quantum event.

This is the foundation of Penrose's newest work and prompted his collaboration with Hameroff in regard to "consciousness"

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

See also Micro-tubules, which may be tiny biological quantum computers and which most living things possess in large numbers. In humans the number of micro-tubules run into the billions.

Give this a look. Hameroff mentions "cogito ergo sum".....You should like that..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quantum Consciousness and its Nature In Microtubules. Dr. Stuart Hameroff - Brief History.

 

I already told you, I understand what is a mathematical structure.
EB

 

I asked you whether it felt to you that pain only have mathematical properties. Not whether you thought they could be explained by quantum physics.
EB

 

your explanation is fabulous

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

much adoration abounds, for such prose and nouns

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!