Discussion in 'Religion' started by Thomas Cranmer, Oct 22, 2017.
Sometimes I wish you were a woman Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What is the problem? They are not contradictory.
They don't contradict each other, no.
They're both equally wrong.
W4U continues to mistake the map for the territory. He thinks the tools we use (mathematics) (i.e. the map) are the universe (i.e. the territory).
"Natural selection is a probabilistic mathematical function."
"Natural selection can be described by a probabilistic mathematical function."
"... it [Natural Selection] is a statistical accounting of mathematical survival probabilities in relationship to adaption (be in harmony) with one's environment."
"...it [Natural Selection] can be described by a statistical accounting of mathematical survival probabilities in relationship to adaption (be in harmony) with one's environment."
They are both equally right, in spite of your protestations.
No, a pencil is a tool for making map. Mathematics are the measurable fundamental relative values on which the map is constructed. The mathematical symbols are descriptive, the mathematical function is real.
Here is your conclusion:
Both words, map and territory, are just descriptive words. A map is not a map, it's merely a description of a territory, but a territory is not a territory, it's merely a description of a territory which is measurable, but the word measurable is merely descriptive of a human observation, which is merely a description....etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Natural selection describes a universal function, but natural selection itself is not a real universal function? What then, pray tell, is natural selection?
Natural selection is not a universal function? If not, then what, pray tell is natural selection?
According to you we live separate from the world and are only able to describe the world, but the world does not exist as we describe it? That sounds like a biblical metaphor.
Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise. Now there is a "descriptive" metaphor which does not exist in reality.
Clearly you are unable to think abstractly. Myopia is rampant in this forum. And I choose the word myopia on purpose.
In your own words, tell me what you believe offers a clear understanding of natutral phenomenon you witnessed.
"OK, your honor, 'blarty frist hoply strumprost", that's all I remember clearly, but it accurately "describes" what I saw"."
"The Laws of Nature" are the recognition of the way things happen in nature. Our symbolic representation of Universal Laws describe the territory.
p.s. "symmetry breaking" is a universal statistical function. Something gets out of balance and the Universal Laws will cause a physical attempt to rebalance the imbalance.
This rebalancing function is of a mathematical nature, by any name.
Are you being serious?
I'd say he is a psychopath. They have no empathy, but know what love is, without being able to experience it.[/QUOTE]
Love is a tangible entity and all life has sparks of it.
Someone said that once and it caught on as a "catchy" profound observation.
And some of it is true. But there are many instances where the symbolic language is quite sufficient to describe all the properties of a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Scientific equations of natural laws are examples of symbolic descriptions of reality. Don't need a map, natural laws are codified Universal potentials.
How much reading up did you do before coming on this forum? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What I said is this.
Nice try, but not correct. What you did say is this.
Again, where did I say that?
I'm not protesting anything. I'm simply calling it out as your personal opinion.
They are both equally unsupported, in spite of your personal beliefs.
Mathematics is a tool, invented by humans.
The rest are your personal ideas, which is not good for readers, who may not see the difference.
I did not say that. You are getting confused.
What I said was mathematical functions can describe natural selection.
This was a paraphrasing of your assertion, not meant to be a direct quote. This is sometimes necessary when an assertion is made that includes 'it' - where 'it' is obvious in-context, though not explicit in the actual quote. The phrase in brackets is the implicit subject of the quote.
That being said, since this has been too mangled to serve the purpose, I will retract it with apologies for the confusion.
That leaves only two statements where you incorrectly described the map as if it were the territory. (red text, above)
No good discussion can come as long as you keep presenting your personal beliefs as if there is a slightest bit of evidence behind them.
I've cut this response short, having realized that this is a thread about God, in the Religion forum. So debate about the definitions or descriptions of natural selection is off-topic.
Feel free to start your own thread if you wish to discuss this further.
You may not have been following W4U's posts but he believes that our actual mathematics and functions are extant in the natural world. Literally, he claims that atoms and other components of the inverse take input in the form of values, process them, and output more values, and this is how nature actually operates.
The distinction between 'nature can be described by math' and 'nature is the math' is lost on him.
When he says nature is mathematics, he means it quite literally.
Not very much until I am presented with something I don't know (which is very often), then I do the research. Keeps it fresh. My problem is that I am interested in all the BIG questions. Can't learn them all from scratch.
But, IMO, it is not necessary to know a lot as long as you know where to find the knowledge and glean the common denominators with other areas of inquiry. I firmly believe it's all connected and interactive, which means there must be "common denominators" which tie the different aspects of the universe together.
But one of the most profound scientific observations was made by David Bohm.
He drew attention to the fact that science has become so specialized and fractured that it is losing sight of the overall cohesiveness (pattern) of the universe. Bohm called it the "Wholeness" and it's "Implicate Order"
IMO, this simply means the universe is a pattern and mathematical values and functions comprise the laws that hold the pattern together without it disolving instantly into a state of chaos. There MUST be one or more common denominators of all universal values and functions . It's really beautiful and elegant.
He builds a logical case for a hierarchy of orders, from the very subtle "infinite potential" to gross expression in physical reality. And that would be a TOE. It's really beautiful and elegant.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780201406351/page/n1
No, in the abstract, mathematics are the laws by which relative values and functions interact and are processed in nature, regardless of human mathematics. Human mathematics are imitations of the natural functioning mathematics which we have observed and finally codified with a symbolic interpretation and named "mathematics" after the abstract conceptual equation of a mathematically functioning Universe.
Cosmologists affirm this Truth. When they ask the universe a correct mathematical question the universe will provide the answer. In a deterministic universe the mathematical function is one of its "infinite universal potentials" already woven in the spacetime fabric as the Implicate.
Mathematics is the human symbol for that which has been recognized as an extant functional property of the unuiverse. i.e the process that brings order out of chaos and creates ever increasing complexities via evolutionary processes.
And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
But when you assert it, publicly, you will be challenged for evidence - which you have so far failed to provide.
You're asking the wrong person. Ask the cosmologists, the experts if they believe a mathematical function already existed before they even looked for proof of such function? Science is full of predictions of a mathematical function, which was subsequently revealed by experiment and proof.
I have provided plenty evidence of cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians asserting this very observation, but you refuse to look at my evidence. How convenient. I consider it prejudicial.
Ah yes. The ol' "I don't take responsibility for what I claim; Blame my source."
Here's the thing. They're not here claiming it. You are. I am calling your claims out.
I have looked at your videos of people claiming such things. They also provide no such supporting evidence. It's what they believe. And they certainly express that in their TD talks - but you won't see any serious science papers on it.
As has been pointed out - it's an entirely semantic issue. There is no way to falsify such a claim. Therefore, it is meta-science, or philosophy, but not science.
And because the people who are actually engaged in cosmology and theoretical physics are wrong because they have no science papers on their personal observations? No people running naked throught the streets yelling "Eureka"?
Actually their belief is founded on evidence through their working papers and predictions which are subsequently proved or falsified by evidence, but never mind. I'm just questioning your standing in judging the RW observation by scientists to begin with.
What science papers have you written on the subject that qualify you to make any judgement on the subject?
What you are positing is merely your belief and I haven't seen any serious science papers on it on. And, by your own words; "No papers? You're out!"
But I am encouraged that you did check out some of the links I provided. It'll give you a better understanding where I am coming from and what my beliefs are.
Do you think the Matrix is possible?
Humans did not invent mathematics, we copied them from nature.........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The formation of galaxies and solar sytems emerged from certain specific mathematical permissions.
The formation of elements emerged from certain very specific mathematical permissions.
The insect had physically mastered the mathematical permissions of flight some 3 billion years before homo sapiens even appeared and then tried to fly by copied artificial means......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Universal mathematical function is the ability to perform logical operations based on relative values and functions.
What we see today is the emergent mathematical sum of an infinite number of orderly changes in patterns and values started at the beginning.
The spacetime universe is a mathematical construct. Without the mathematical aspect the physical world could not have randomly expressed itself in the order we see today and looking back in time, has been an aspect of the universe since the very beginning. It allowed for the emergence of the table of elements, a mathematical set of universal values, and all the other Universal mathematical constants (equations) which we know are causal to our reality.
There cannot be a controversy about this. If it's orderly it has a mathematical aspect.
Order = mathematical function
We saw and recognized this equation and invented human abstract symbolic mathematical codes which abstractly explain all physical change and is the very foundation of science and physics in particular. And thats why mathematics work so well. It was man's greatest discovery of a universal function, an essence of spacetime itself, the mathematical function.
It is the only answer to the question "why do mathematics work so well?"
They work so well because they are a logical part of the universal potential.
Don't go all shakespeare on me...
Separate names with a comma.