Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

But you posted an illustration of perceptions, not expressed values. Even more strikingly, your illustration is of specifically human perceptions - it doesn't even include the perceptions of different perceivers, let alone any "values" the perceived is supposed to be "expressing" independently of perception itself.

You are talking about colors. Colors are means of perception. The ones humans use are different from the ones other sighted beings use - but the seen does not change depending on whether a human or a shrimp or a rattlesnake is seeing it. It does not "express" different "values" depending on whether there is a human nearby to see it.

Colors have no "values" unless the perceiver who employs them assigns them "values", and these values are not expressed by the perceived but assigned by the perceiver. For any entity unable to perceive some combination of wavelengths as the color green, for example, the color does not exist and has no value at all - that would include most of the green objects in the world, and all of the photons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you prefer "receptive" to "passive", or some other word that fits the argument at hand, feel free to adjust my language so that you are more comfortable following that argument. I have no objection to any good faith attempt to follow the argument at hand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I posted an illustration of relative wavelengths symbolized in hz (values)

I used the term "colors" in response to Michael's post, but of course I mean relative wavelengths (semantics)

Wegs already posed the question if a falling tree makes a sound if there is no one to hear it. The same answer applies, the falling tree creates wavelenghts in the audible range, regardless of a listener. Light propagates in specific wavelength frequencies, regardless of observers or symbolic representations.

The relative values of the wavelengths do not change regardless of any observer, OK?

OK, replace the term color with wavelength. Do wavelengths have relative values? Do waves create interference or harmonic patterns? Waves interact with each other regardless of an observer, no? But humans can only see colors (wavelengths) within the human range of visible light, insects can see in the infra-red and ultra-violet spectra. Some animals cannot see any colors or just one or two.

How does "white' light appear? It is an additive harmonic of all three "primary" wavelengths, no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When red and blue light are combined, the result is magenta. When green and blue light are combined, they make cyan. Red and green light make yellow. And when all three primary colors of light are combined, we see white light, a harmonic pattern.
Those phenomena are purely natural and exist apart from any observation and are natural expressions of inherent or intrinsic relative values.

Wavelengths act in a self-referential manner. Remember the term, IMO it is the very function which leads to the emergence of persistent orderly natural functions or mathematical "equations" or "constants", regardless of observation.

They are self-referential and create spontaneously emerging patterns, such as the paraboloid curve emerging from drawing straight lines.

People can disappear today and nothing changes in the existence of any fundamental universal self-referential relative values and functions. We would not be missed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And then explicitly called it a parabola.
You didn't watch the video, did you? 5:00 mark.

Well done. You've just completely invalidated everything you've been trying to say since post 374.

 

Is a radio-signal physical? Yet it exists mathematically.

 

I'm glad you actually watched the clip. Unfortunately you seemed to have watched with prejudice.

What? My post 374 consists of a smiley...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... in reference to black holes.

But I get the gist of what you are trying to say in reference to curves consisting of small straight segments.

My answer is that a curve does not contain any straight line segments and all we need do is connect all the points of each leg of the right angle by straight lines to get only points in the curve, no straight lines of any kind.

This is why Antonsen called it an emerging pattern. That he called the emerging pattern by the generic name of parabola has been explained and defined.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Parabola.html

Note; no mention of any cones or asymptotes. If that were pertinent I'm sure it would have been mentioned.

No, I don't want to see your sketch which is not representative of the one Antonsen provided and is presented in the clip and which he generalized as a parabola.
I provided a similar sketch to the one Antonsen referred to from the Wolfram site.
Please use that and only that as your basis for argument.

 

You did not answer.

The universe is pretty cool. Math is also pretty cool. I get it and I agree.

I guess I thought you were trying to change our way of thinking about one or both of them. Demonstrating that curves can be formed from a point on each of an infinite number of line segments is something we already know.

If you're simply marveling at it, then I think we can all get behind that. Was there more?

 

Not really, except to recognize that mathematics have many hidden qualities which are often overlooked because they are so familiar in their ordinary use in everyday life.

But mathematics are so much more. All mathematicians stand in awe of the power of mathematics in every facet of studying and analyzing universal natural values and functions, as well as for all animate and non-animate objects. If there is a pattern, it has an associated mathematical equation for expression.

IMO, somewhat similar to the concept of "spacetime", which is a self-referential geometry.

This is what Antonsen's basic message was all about. Mathematics allows us to represent all natural patterns and also use them for human invented patterns, such as choreography for tap-dancing, and everything else. Mathematics seem to be inextricably connected to physical expressions at all levels and in all phases of Natural phenomena.

To me that reinforces the concept of the universe having abstract mathematical potentials which emerged and became expressed as self-referential patterns with the physical emergence and interactions of the natural elements from the dynamical plasm after the BB.

CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) is a serious contender for explaining how the universal spacetime itself unfolds.

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

Much more recent articles and discoveries in CDT are abundant and easily accessible through Google. Below just two links to official lectures by Renate Loll and associates.

http://pirsa.org/index.php?p=speaker&name=Renate_Loll

and from Cornell University; Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity
J. Ambjorn, A. Goerlich, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3591

 

You posted an illustration of the human perception of electromagnetic radiation.

Colors are not relative wavelengths. They are human perceptions of specific wavelengths (or whatever combination triggers the receptors).

Again: you are talking about human perception. The inhuman universe does not combine red and blue wavelengths to obtain magenta wavelengths. The photons involved have no such relationship with each other.

Not unless some human assigns them.

 

Of course any illustration is man made. It does show that we recognize that electromagnetic wavelengths have relative values. That is what the illustration illustrates.

And do actively influence the state of inanimate objects as well. Infra-red heats a rock as well as human skin.
Why do you use the term "trigger" unless there is a value which causes the triggering?

Why do you ignore all my qualifiers? I already explained that I used the term "color" in reference to another post, but that of course by "colors" I mean EM wavelengths.

Of course EM wavelengths interact with other EM wavelengths. That's why we talk about wave interference and wave harmonics.
And wave lengths do affect everything else in the universe. All objects become active or passive "observers" when exposed to EM radiation.

There is even a biblical account of a bush spontaneously igniting from EM radiation. In that case humans interpreted EM radiation as the "voice of god", an extraordinary human assigned symbolic "value"....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am not talking about human assigned symbolic numbers, but natural relative values, such as we simulate in algebra. Human numbers are arbitrarily assigned values, the stuff in the universe has no numbers, only intrinsic values, patterns. That's why we speak of latent or expressed "potentials".

Are you saying there are no relative values (potentials) in nature? There is no variety of stuff in nature? There is no stuff in nature? Stuff does not have intrinsic values (potentials)?

I am very clear about the distinction between human symbolic descriptive languages and nature's intrinsic properties which human symbols 0describe. Unfortunately, very few people are able to separate the two as being distinctively different concepts and keep slapping on the label of mathematical numbers are "made by humans".

Well duh....... natural physical mathematical values are "made by nature" . Actually should read "emerged in nature in direct association with the emergence of physical stuff".......same as "spacetime" is an "emergent phenomena of space and its emergent associated time".

 

Including you.

What is the difference between a photon that has a distinct property of energy and a photon that has this "value"?
Again: how is this more than a semantic distinction?

 

There is no distinction the way you put it. It is when you assign a human invented symbolic number to the value that creates the distinction between human descriptive mathematics and inherent relative values (potentials) in nature.

The universe does not deal in numbers, it deals in potentials and expressed causal values and functions of physical patterns which, due to their regularity, may be termed to be mathematical in essence.
Symbolic descriptive representations are for human convenience because they work when applied to natural values and functions.

 

So far, not in the way you put it either.

And, other than a semantic one, what is the distinction? Practically not semantically?

Yeah yeah. You keep saying this. It's simply an assertion. You have provided no evidentiary support.

A world that ostensibly operates as (insert W4U sequence of buzzwords here) is in distinguishable from a world where it does not. At least, as far as you have been able to explain.

Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls. It's been hundreds of posts now that you keep saying the same thing. And in all that time you have bee unable to explain how our techniques would be even slightly different is we were to grant your idea. How is it more than a semantic issue?

Why don't you take it offline until you develop it further?

 

Universe does not deal in numbers .

Any pattern is based on the physical .

Without the physical there is no pattern .

The essence of mathematics is based on the physical existence of all things , from the micro ( quantum sub-particles to the macro , Galaxies ) .

The physical being is based on , all , Energy and Matter forms , in this Universe .

Not mathematics .

 

First of all this sentence is completely nonsensical, (distinguishable or indistinguishable?), but I'll try to save it for you.

I am not claiming that the world operates different from what it does, regardless of how or what we say or do to explain or describe it. You are the one drawing the distinction between the natural landsape and the human map.
And I agree as far as the human symbolic representations are concerned.

My claim is that the landscape has what we call mathematical properties and potentials, values and functions.
And you keep misinterpreting my understanding of the difference between human symbolic language and the intrinsic potentials , values, and functions which do naturally exist and are observable and measurable. How else can we describe them in human or any other terms at all? Are scientists pulling all this mathematical stuff out of their asses, or is science based on objective observation of expressed patterns?

The solar system is a mathematical construct, a pattern which formed in accordance to strict natural orderly (what we have named mathematical) imperatives.

A mathematical pattern, by any other name.

You keep insisting that human mathematics are approximations of the real thing, but why then do they work with exquisite precision, which would suggest that fundamentally we do understand how the real thing functions.

And to call all this by the generic name of "physics" is merely a general identification of the orderly phenomena and only generically and approximately. Everything is physical.

The specific way things work is mathematical in essence and we are able to symbolize this with Human mathematics. Which means the way the universe is constructed had to follow specific values and functions which are naturally mathematical (a human term) in essence.

If you don't see a fundamental difference between the two perspectives, what is your vehement quarrel with Tegmark all about? Calling him a charlatan for positing something which you have no fundamental disagreement with is ad hominem (oh, he changed his name, just like movie stars, tsk, tsk).

But if you can correct me in some detail, I'd appreciate it.

The universe does not function semantically, it functions mathematically....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm sorry you don't understand it. To be clear: by 'a world' I mean 'what scientists do'. Our world would study the universe in exactly the same way.

You do realize that you just accused me of "drawing a distinction" between two distinct things, right?

That is an example of a truism: two different things are, in fact, two different things.

Explain how this is more than a semantic. issue.

No it doesn't.

A carbon atom here on Earth is identical to a carbon atom in Andromeda. They have the identical properties, such as mass and charge. That alone ensures that they will behave identically. No values, no functions, no rules. Just properties.

You like to play fast and loose with terms such as value and function. You are not arguing in good faith when you mangle the meanings.

I don't think you see the difference. You still have not been able to explain it.

Sorry, Are you thinking of someone else?
I don't recall having a quarrel with Tegmark. Nor do I recall calling him a charlatan.

Uh, that's not what an ad hominem is.
Do you know what an hominem is? That's rhetorical; no need to quote a dictionary in your response. I know what an ad hom is.

There's nothing to correct.

It's not right; it's not wrong. It's a semantic issue. It makes no effective difference that you have been able to show.

And yet, thread after thread after thread gets derailed by your stating it over and over again. You've got one hammer and everything is a nail. Except you haven't actually nailed anything. You're waved the hammer in the air and said think of the possibilities!

 

Is the world distinguishable or indistinguishable from different perspectives? Read (edit) your post more carefully.

No, you are. You claimed that "the map is not the territory".

Seems obvious doesn't it?

Yes properties with specific values. If everything had the same properties then human physics would not work, no?

Au contraire, my use of those terms are much more defined than the generic term "properties"

• There's nothing to correct.[/quote] Well then we are in agreement?

May I remind you that it is you who disagrees with me, not the other way around.

Do you believe the universe is a mathematical construct in essence, with intrinsic mathematical values and functions?
This is the question posed in the OP. I say yes. What say you?

If it is just a matter of semantics then we are in agreement, no? Or are your semantics better than my semantics?
Apparently you do have a problem with my semantics and that would suggest the difference is more fundamental. Hence the lengthy discussion trying to clarify our perspectives.

 

OK, so there's a space between 'in' and 'distinguishable'.

Don't make a single typo. I'll burn you for it.

You do realize you quoted yourself, right? I might just burn you for that.

So, still no explanation for this "obvious" thing then. In all this time...

Values are a human invention.

No. You are making an assertion. The onus is on you to make your case. You haven't.

I need not disagree, I simply point out that it is not granted.

I assert that the Milky Way is the tail of a Cosmic Unicorn. If you disagree then not only are you "rejecting" my idea, but the onus is on you to prove it wrong.
Don't be silly.

Ohhh! This is a belief thing. You have faith; you don't need evidence, or logic (since this is the philosophy forum). I'll have this moved to Pseudoscience. Or Free Thoughts. Or Religion.

Seriously though. If you want anyone to listen, you'll have to do better than believe. You'll have to back it up. So far, in hundreds of posts, you haven't.

What I have a problem with is you hijacking a dozen threads with hundreds of posts to trot out this one-trick pony that, so far, you have been unable to demonstrate has the slightest impact on how we study the universe.

Putting W4U's Mathematical Universe back on ignore. Contact me when you can at least come up with a way to defend it.

 

Everything humans do or say are human inventions. Now what?

 

Does my world operate different, we are in the same Universe and our Scientists say same Galaxy, than your world???

We don't have mathematics, our Scientists think it is a primative system

Example for gravity. At point of contact absolute black fading into whitest white

Anyway my question is, does you rating system (maths) make your Physics work different than our Physics under our rating system (colour)

As a amateur can I ask does your math system have a equivalent to our gravity black?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!