Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Aug 7, 2020.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    PHYSICS DOES NOT HAVE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS

    Try real hard to understand

    I think this is where a lot of my inability to explain to others and because of my inability, just repeat what I just rejected

    Reality is what it is

    Reality is NOT our anthropomorphic VIEW of our DESCRIPTIONsS

    Grandpa nap moment and coffee after
    See you on the other side

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    river likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Does physics have any functions?
    (Input --> Function --> Output)? (1 H + 2 O = H2O) ?

    Real Functions for Physics
    Jorge L. deLyra
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01538#
    It seems it is your view.

    You cannot let go of the idea that mathematics are a wholly arbitrary human invention, instead of a discovered and symbolized attribute of spacetime.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Consider: Fractal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

    There is a whole Universal Theory based on the fractality of spacetime. It is called Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    I think mathematically (logically) based natural processing functions are essential to the existence and evolutionary continuance of spacetime.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    And how do you keep stuff apart? It's not all the same stuff, is it? There is even stuff within stuff. How does it do that?

    Is it magical beyond our cognition and understanding ? Or are we able to analyze the mathematical data by which different stuffs may be relationally connected. There is nothing magical about the concept of a mathematically describable relational interaction of fundamental stuffs (values), by means of a symbolic translation of a dynamical but orderly reality and how these interactive properties can be applied to human survival mechanisms.

    We do not describe Global warming as "stuff happening". Knowledge of the mathematics in a probabilistic but deterministic world may come in handy some day!

    We may not necessarily know "when", but knowing (calculating) "what" may happen in the future is a survival strategy in an "grander" evolutionary context......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Universe is not an unknowable mystery! It is a physical object and can be abstractly analyzed as to inherent mathematically calculable potentials and probable behaviors.

    Else we might as well believe in God, the anthropomorphized imaginary, unexplainable but benevolent spiritual equivalent (=) of mathematically expressed Potential ("That which may become reality"), a potential future probability based on patterns with measurable relational values and mathematical (algebraic) functions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Refresher;

    OP title; Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

    The OP question does not question about a physical universe, it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Maths - Invented

    instead of a discovered and symbolized attribute of spacetime

    which is

    DA DAR

    PHYSICS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    OP title; Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

    Correct well done. Elephant stamp to everyone who got that ✓

    The OP question does not question about a physical universe,

    Correct well done. Elephant stamp to everyone who got that ✓

    it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe. BUZZZZZZ
    FAIL

    Squirrel stamp if you can find the added word

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    LOL.....

    Physics
    https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science

    Tegmark estimates that remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws to consist of some 32 relational values (numbers) and a handful of equations. Simple and elegant......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Not fail, because a mathematically ordered universe transcends its expression in physics only.
    A mathematical Universe is both Physical and Metaphysical!
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    FAIL because the word physical is not in title

    And now a additional fail for the above

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Tegmark

    All possible mathematical structures have a physical existence, and collectively, give a multiverse that subsumes all others. Here, Tegmark is taking us well beyond accepted viewpoints, advocating his personal vision for explaining the Universe.

    Here is where the train is a Planck distance from going off the rails

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Tegmark does not dispute physics, he proposes physics is based on the extant mathematical relationships between inherent physical values and their orderly (predictable) interactions.
    The veracity of that statement is self-evident.
    Yes, the old Planck ploy. No one knows how it works, but we do know for sure that somehow it doesn't work mathematically, while EVERYTHING else in the universe functions in accordance with mathematical guiding equations.
    Therefore Mathematics are no more than an interesting human artifact? A convenient curiosity? C'mon....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sorry, but "rails" is an unfortunate analogy. Nothing is going off the rails in nature. Everything seem to reach its destination with uncanny regularity. It is not the universe's weakness that humans don't know where the train is going.

    Are you prepared to argue that Planck distance is not a mathematical "measurement", regardless of any mathematical "uncertainty" in our ability to make simultaneous "measurements" ?????

    Is it possible that at Planck scale ordinary physics do not work anymore, but Planck scale mathematical rules still apply?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

    But no one claims that what's there is not mathematical in essence, no?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

    Can you show me the physical existence of mathematics? It exists, no? Are you proposing that the universe has no mathematical properties?

    Is Tegmark the only scientist that USES mathematics?
    If he is the only advocate why is EVERYBODY using maths? Are there any alternatives?

    The Language of Physics
    The Calculus and the Development of Theoretical Physics in Europe, 1750–1914
    Authors: Garber, Elizabeth

    https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780817640392#

    I know you are not proposing that only Tegmark uses maths for unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

    All scientists use mathematical equationss, not physics!
    Maths are the most accurate way to explain physical stuff. It is also very convenient that maths are universally applicable. A lucky coincidence?

    A simple example; In Physics stuff bumps into each other, in Mathematics things bump into each other in a quantifiable manner.

    Either Physics has it's own language or it must be inextricably connected with Mathematics.
    Physics does have its own language but aside from describing function it does not measure anything.
    Any and all measurements are by definition of a mathematical nature.

    The language of physics

    06/11/19 , By Lauren Biron
    10 more words that mean something different to scientists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Quintessence? If there is only physics, why are we talking about abstract "essences"?

    Tegmark does not argue against "physics", he argues FOR "mathematics" as a fundamental aspect of a physical universe.

    It seems you are arguing the exact opposite? Why?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    No.....the term "physical" is irrelevant in context of mathematical ordering of the universe and everything in it.

    A physical aspect to the universe has already been stipulated to.
    You just refuse stipulating to a functional "mathematical ordering" aspect of the universal (physical) stuff.
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,585
    See Peter Woit's scathing review of this book here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

    It starts with this: "Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an uttery empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.” What’s perhaps most remarkable about the book is the respectful reception it seems to be getting...." and continues in much the same vein.

    Woit, I find, has his feet firmly on the ground and speaks with clarity and a lot of sense, as he should, being a mathematical physicist at Columbia.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Not a ploy

    Tegmark is a small DISTANCE away from from being crazy

    Rest of post blah blah blah to long

    I got that from the small sample of works of Tegmark I was asked to check out

    Hence the assessment Tegmark is a Planck distance from going off the rails

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    Care to share those revelatory works? From your assessment it looks like I need to read them so that I may mend my ways.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe,
    I read the link, but that did not in any way persuade me of Tegmark's folly and prejudice me against his notion of a "Mathematical Universe".

    Our Mathematical Universe

    Posted on January 17, 2014 by woit
    And is "woit" maybe a cousin of "sting"? Somebody is making money on declaring Tegmark a nut.
    woit says? What is an uttery empty vision?
    Wow, wow, wow and wow!
    Who is this anonymous senior colleague in 1998, that qualified him to indulge in ad hominem.
    More crackpots ? A lot of crackpots around, seems. Looks like there are a lot of crackpots believing in a multiverse.
    And a "multiverse" is somehow inextricably connected with a "Mathematical Universe"?
    OK, we have a problem with a multiverse. And how does that falsify a mathematical universe?
    https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

    And is that not what we are talking about?
    Even if Tegmark's multiverse Levels has flaws, what does that have to do with the mathematics of the universe. Is this Level stuff determinate of a mathematical universe?

    That article by woit is the body of falsification that destroys Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe"?
    Where does it do that? Where's the ''beef"?

    Oh here.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

    I read that as an extension of Bohm's "Hierachy of Orders", a perfectly logical model of a mathematical universe.

    From this can I assume that Prof. Liddle does not have any viewpoints beyond what is accepted and has no personal vision for explaining the universe? How original.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    From reading a partial section of a scathing review of his book

    https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

    You can read the sample I read here or if need a fuller samples read the full scathing report behind the pay wall

    Extract from scathing report

    *****
    In other words, while we currently lack direct observational support for the Level IV multiverse, it’s possible that we may get some in the future.

    This is pretty much absurd, but in any case, note the standard linguistic trick here: what we’re missing is only “direct” observational support, implying that there’s plenty of “indirect” observational support for the Level IV multiverse.
    *****

    My translation of the above extract from the scathing report

    Tegmark's thinking is along the lines of

    "I think THIS (no evidence) - and IF THIS turns out to be true (because we find evidence) then this other THIS I think will be true"

    I can do that magical thinking

    I think Pink Unicorns exist and if they do I think Pink Unicorns farts exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,923
    You can?
    Did you just posit a scathing scientific indictment of Tegmark's hypothesis of a mathematical universe?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Scathing

    adjective
    1. witheringly scornful; severely critical.
      "she launched a scathing attack on the governor"

      Similar: devastating, withering, blistering, extremely critical

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,585
    Pretty scathing, huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Noooooo I showed you a example of my magical thinking. The type of magical thinking I assess Tegmark engages in

    Please stop with the constant reference to authority

    Believe or not NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page