Doing the Numbers on No. 1

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Apr 30, 2018.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Wrtie4U:

    Yes.
    In general, no.
    Technically, no. The pattern is an abstraction we recognise in (or impose on) the particular arrangement of constituent parts etc.
    I don't know what that means, so I can hardly deny it.
    You quoted some definitions. Here's one:
    a pattern is a regularity in the world, in human-made design, or in abstract ideas.
    The word "abstract" comes up over and over again in the discussion of patterns. A pattern is a concept, fundamentally.

    Why is this so hard for you?

    Well, using the above definition, anything lacking regularity has no pattern. We tend to distinguish regular, repeating, things from other things that lack those regularities or repetitions.
    Do the things recognise their own patterns, or do we thinking beings recognise the patterns?

    Can a pattern exist without a mind to conceptualise it?
    How about this:
    0001100101111111101101100001?

    Does that have a "pattern", or not? If it does, is it something somebody imposed on it, or something innate to it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Good we have agreement.
    OK, let's see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Alpha decay is one type of radioactive decay, in which an atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle, and thereby transforms (or "decays") into an atom with a mass number decreased by 4 and atomic number decreased by 2.
    Looks like self-organizing patterns to me. And other patterns inherent in atoms :
    Patterns
    Patterns have nothing to do with humans. We don't create natural patterns, we recognize them. That is how humans developed their symbolic mathematical representations of natural regularities.
    Why is this so hard for you?
    Here is another:
    Pattern formation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Complex systems
    Topics
    Self-organization
    Collective behavior
    Networks
    Evolution and adaptation
    Systems theory and Cybernetics
    Nonlinear dynamics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Pattern formation in a computational model of dendrite growth.
    The science of pattern formation deals with the visible, (statistically) orderly outcomes of self-organization and the common principles behind similar patterns in nature.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_formation
    Because you are anthropomorphizing. A pattern is only a concept in the human mind. In nature it is a mathematical self-organizing principle,
    Probability
    Do things need to recognize their patterns? Does a Daisy know it grows its leaves in a Fibonacci sequence? No, it's a genetic instruction. And yes, human do recognize patterns, but not all patterns that may be too obscure for casual inspection.
    Of course. There is no God. But there is Natural selection that selects for efficiency in growth patterns.
    That is obviously a binary pattern with a numerical value. But it is again an antropomorphization of a natural value. It is the mathematical nature of the universal fabric that compels orderly patterns to evolve, if not instantaneous then demonstrably over time by natural selection.

    I believe, this is what David Bohm called the universal "Guiding Equation", the recognition of an abstract logical self-ordering mathematical aspect to the universe.

    There are only extant patterns of things or else something cannot exist.
    Higgs boson may not have a fixed pattern and that is why it cannot exist unless as a pattern formed in the Higgs field. And then the pattern is that the Higgs boson immediately decays into patterns of leptons and photons.

    The term quantum mechanics suggests that fundamentally all things are formed from patterns in quantum mechanics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,946
    Or how about the digits of pi? They never repeat, and have no pattern in the billions of digits we've checked so far.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    JamesR & W4Y,
    wow, from a handful of "10" numbers on Nr. 1 on post#1 to this!
    If only this kind of attention would be lavished on "planets on a platter" aka "Jupiter orbital and rotational velocity cancel?"
     
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    May be that is the hidden message in this thread's o.p.
    The ratio we see most often embodies in the round bodies in our telescopes has no pattern, but Planet No.1 with life does. tons of tens.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    nebel, thanks for your patience. I do have a feeling this aside is very much related to your OP question.

    My last post on the subject. A little video on naturally occurring patterns.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    How about Jupiter? That planet certainly displays several observable dynamic patterns.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This latest image of Jupiter, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope on 25 August 2020, was ... [+]
    NASA, ESA, A. SIMON (GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER), AND M. H. WONG (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY) AND THE OPAL TEAM.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiec...ook-its-brightest-biggest-and-best-this-week/

    I can see some 25-30 different patterns just looking at this picture. Are they definable with the decimal system? I have no clue.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  11. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    river and Write4U like this.
  12. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In the spirit that this thread about the earth, now encompasses the solar system (that in truth is need as an ensemble to guarantee our life) here are my further 10 cents worth of tens:
    take Saturn:
    10 times further than Earth from sun, therefore @
    10 AU,
    1/100 of solar gravity strength of around here at that distance from sun
    100 on the bode sequence, plus
    independently:
    10 km/sec orbital velocity
    10 km /sec rotational velocity at equator
    10 out of 10 rating on the beauty scale with those rings imho. ( and think of the patterns there ha ha. ) that is 10 10s, in one post. stretching it.
     
    river likes this.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Write4U:

    You have given lots of examples of patterns. I have nowhere denied that patterns exist, so I don't see the relevance of what you posted to the main point that I put to you.

    Your mistake is in saying things like "atoms are patterns" or "a tennis ball is a pattern" or "a person is a pattern" or "the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is a pattern". None of those things are patterns. They are, respectively: a collection of subatomic particles, a larger collection of subatomic particles, an even larger collection of subatomic particles and an even larger collection of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles, by the way, are not patterns, either, in case you're confused.

    The geometry of a daisy is something we recognise in it. Its cause, as you say, is (at least in part) due to genetic instructions, which at an abstract level are conceptual, and which at a practical level are actually embedded in the way that certain molecules interact with one another chemically. A daisy is not a pattern. The DNA of a daisy is not a pattern. Both of those things have patterns, but they also have properties that are not, fundamentally, patterns.

    If you haven't understood this by now, I don't think you're going to get it.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Not obviously. You're bringing a whole lot of your own anthropomorphic baggage to examining that string of zeros and ones.

    For instance, when you see "000011101101100001111100" on the screen, you're not seeing zeros and ones, for starters. You're seeing light and dark points of light. You recognise patterns in those points, and interpret them as ovals and lines. Then, on top of that, you layer other conceptual knowledge that you have, to interpret a circular form as a representation of the digit zero and the line as the digit one. Then, on top of that, you layer some mathematical conceptual knowledge you have, to describe it as a "binary pattern with a numerical value".

    Notice that most of that did not come from what you saw on the screen. It came from inside your head. In other words, the pattern stuff is in your head, and the physical stuff - the photons of light on the screen - is outside.

    The mistake you make, regularly, is to imagine that the stuff in your head actually exists "out there" in world outside. It doesn't. Patterns are concepts, not things.
    Mathematics itself is inert. It can't compel anything.
    Maybe what he is saying is that mathematics is good at describing how the universe "self-orders". I very much doubt that he is saying the universe is mathematical (i.e. just a concept). On the other hand, I realise that is what your other hero, Tegmark, is claiming. I think he's as confused as you are.
    ? We detected the Higgs boson in the Large Hadron Collider.

    In quantum field theory, by the way, all particles are excitations of one type of field or another. The Higgs isn't special in that sense.
    That's not a pattern. That's just an observed fact of nature. Our explanation for why it decays in the way that it does is a collection of conceptual patterns.
    No. Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a theoretical (read conceptual) model of the behaviour of particles, fields etc.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    You have said that patterns are an abstraction. I said that atoms and molecules arranged in patterns make up the
    physical world.
    Yes, collections of subatomic particles arranged in patterns that make up the Table of Elements and the entire physical world that is built from them.
    No I am not confused about that. Subatomic particles are quanta of specific values, that self-organize in atomic patterns.
    I believe that is described in Chaos Theory.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    I bet it can be translated into a number, no?
    You are telling me? I believe that I introduced Anil Seth to this forum. If you failed to watch his lectures, it is not my fault.
    I'll go you one better. All conscious experiences of the brain are "controlled hallucinations".
    I guess you reject the notion of "Domain of function". The range of allowable and prohibited universal functions.

    What is the input and output of a function called?
    What is Input Output?
    This is assuming that all natural relational interactions are processing systems in themselves. See Robert Hazen.
    Yes, that is so easy to say.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
    What was it's pattern? How long did it exist as a boson before it decayed ?
    I understand that, But the Higgs boson is unable to exist independently as a particle and decays immediately after explication by brute force.
    I agree. Conceptual and observable patterns.
    C'mon. Quantum Mechanics are Mainstream Science.

    Might as well say that Relativity is a theoretical concept. Our very physical existence is a theoretical concept.

    All of this is just anthropomorphization.

    " Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" | Anil Seth
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    I gave this some thought and of course it is a logical trap as to it's meaning.

    If this is not a binary interpretation of as number, then it may

    well be an invented set of ones and zeros , or as you said, light and dark markings. But regardless of how this originated it IS a pattern of two objects arranged in a random order. Yet, unless it is a binary interpretation of Pi it will eventually resolve into a repeating pattern.
    So, yes, you may think it is a random pattern, how do you know? Are you exempt from natural law?

    That has been described by the law of probability previously in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Write4U:

    In your reply. you didn't really address the main point I made. I suspect that, once again, it didn't really sink in. Oh well. I don't see much point in continuing with this. I think I might be better off leaving you to talk to river, who doesn't really care about things making sense, or about getting things correct when talking about science. Talking to him is about as useful as talking to a wall, of course, but I've seen you carry on quite lengthy dialogues with him nonetheless. Maybe that's all you need - somebody to spam with your stuff who is willing to react, even if not very helpfully.
    Of course, if you like. It's a binary string. A random one, in this case. Not intended as a puzzle.
    I don't know what that means.
    No. I don't "reject" basic mathematical concepts such as the domain of a function. Really, I don't know why you keep posting random definitions. Inability to focus on the points that have been put to you?
    That's not what the domain of a function is.
    You think Tegmark's credentials make him right, automatically, do you?
    N.B. I respect his qualifications, position and academic credentials, of course, but whether something is true or false in science doesn't depend on how many awards you've won or how many pieces of paper you have displayed on your office wall.
    That question makes no sense. The term "pattern" is really vague; it's not a technical term. There are lots of different kinds of patterns, and it's not like one object has just one pattern.

    The Higgs boson has a number of different properties, just like other subatomic particles. If you want specifics, they aren't hard to find. Or you could ask a specific question.
    I'm not sure, but I think I could probably find out with a 2 second google search. Have you done that?
    Explication? Brute force? What are you on about?

    Lots of particles decay, with various mean lifetimes. Even neutrons decay when separated from atomic nuclei.

    But why do the specifics of Higgs bosons matter in the context of this discussion, anyway? Aren't you just going off on a random tangent again?
    C'mon what? If you think what I said is wrong, tell me why.
    It is! That's why it's called the "Theory of Relativity". Like every theory in science, it is a conceptual model that is used to explain observations and to make predictions.
    No! You think, therefore you are. Right?
    You still haven't looked up the meaning of that word, have you?
    No. It's just a random string of 1s and 0s. You missed the point, probably.
    The point of randomness is generally that it lacks a pattern. Nevertheless, there are patterns to be found there, as I explained in my previous post. Patterns are concepts.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Refresh my memory. What was your main point? I thought that I addressed all your points.
    So, I was correct.
    Of course not, You haven't watched Anil Seth.
    Are you familiar with the term. I posted the definition. I/m sorry you don't see the connection.
    Enlighten me.
    I think any scientist who is qualified to teach at MIT is worthy of respect and attention. I would certainly refrain from calling him a charlatan.
    Here we go again. I am right but it doesn't qualify as science. The point is that there are lots of different kinds of patterns. It supports my argument.

    Patterns are not abstractions. Patterns have names. Geometry is the scientific name for a measurable pattern, no?

    I made a specific statement. Tell me if I am wrong and why.
    Yes, the Higgs boson decayes @ 1.6 10-22 seconds.
    The Large Hadron Collider | CERN
    The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. [/quote] What do you think that means?
    Do neutrons have patterns?
    No, I gave you an example of a particle that is unable to exist independent of other matter, due to its lack of a stable pattern.
    OK
    How can one make a model unless there is a pattern to model?
    AFAIK Relativity can be modelled in many different patterns. That is how we are able to make predictions. We can project patterns based on relativity.
    NO. We hallucinate our reality. Check Anil Seth, or is he another charlatan in your book of qualified scientists?
    I don't need to anymore. You remind me all the time with your examples.
    No, the definition is
    And again No; "patterns have names" (Roger Antonsen)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Electron microscopy............................ Sacred Flower of Life


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqckRFAMuctbiqTmeATO1laJ-GBMsbjVMjjw&usqp=CAU

    And too many real life patterns to copy:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=patterns in nature&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYxcTIic_0AhXMHzQIHXdTBE4Q_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=615&dpr=1.5
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  20. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    to keep on topic, forgot to add:
    2x10 km/sec orbital velocity of points on the equator at midnight. (even as Vr = 10 km/sec remains constant.)
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What do you think that means?
    Do neutrons have patterns?
    No, I gave you an example of a particle that is unable to exist independent of other matter, due to its lack of a stable pattern.
    OK How can one make a model unless there is a pattern to model?
    AFAIK Relativity can be modelled in many different patterns. That is how we are able to make predictions. We can project patterns based on relativity.
    NO. We hallucinate our reality. Check Anil Seth, or is he another charlatan in your book of qualified scientists?
    I don't need to anymore. You remind me all the time with your examples.
    No, the definition is And again No; "patterns have names" (Roger Antonsen)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Electron microscopy............................ Sacred Flower of Life


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqckRFAMuctbiqTmeATO1laJ-GBMsbjVMjjw&usqp=CAU

    And too many real life patterns to copy:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=patterns in nature&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYxcTIic_0AhXMHzQIHXdTBE4Q_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=615&dpr=1.5 [/QUOTE]

    Not impressed Write4U . Your stuck in a pattern . All physical , three dimensional objects will have patterns , mathematically and in physical shape . Here's the thing , if I take away the mathematical patterns , it does not change the real physical movements amoungst real physical things .
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Exactly, physical movements follow patterns and patterns are expressions regularities of any kind and can be modelled mathematically. That is where we get out sciences from.
    Repeatable experiments yielding the same results are considered proof of a hypothesis. The proof lies in the regularity, in the pattern.

    How do we use patterns in science?
    https://thewonderofscience.com/patterns

    nebel discovered a pattern of specific magnitudes associated with earth
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The pattern is still based on the physical .

    Patterns don't exist in empty space . A Void .
     

Share This Page