Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

YES

If there is NOTHING in existence there is nothing to label (name) it, and no way to consider it to be a one of

So my reading of that is Peter Higgs had a thought about the Higgs boson, from observations?or a wild guess?

He then used the maths spanner to open up the formula to expose it

Fair summary?

Wild guess here

The Higgs boson was found ✓ but if the Higgs boson had not been in existence the formula would have meant nothing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

↑

YES

Exactly

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential. It was a purely theoretical exercise. And it was not founded on observation. The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality.

It is "forged" from the Higgs field, conjured by application of pure energy using specific mathematical forces.
IMO, Dark Matter may well be the Higgs field, unobservable but potentially enfolded in the field. That would account for the missing mass and also be powerful enough to have a Universal impact?

Is this why scientists are afraid of the Higgs boson. It's potential for existence also poses a risk to the existence of the universe itself.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...s-higgs-boson-doomsday-he-s-not-alone-n198766

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is not true.

This is not true.

Massive particles are harder to observe in nature because they are associated with greater energies but, like any other particle, we can more easily observe them in a lab setting. They are difficult to produce directly in relation to their mass, which is directly related to how much energy it takes to produce them.

 

What is it that produced a Nobel prize?

Higgs bosons cannot exist separate from mass, they impart mass but do not exist as independently existing particles.

No one has ever observed a Higgs boson outside of Cern. Even in the collider it existed for something like a millionth of a second before it decayed

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/higgs-boson-exist.htm

 

Discovery of the Higgs boson?

Something similar can be said for gravity.

True. So what?

While a number of things you are mentioning have some element of truth to them, several of them are false as stated.

 

Yes, it had never been observed before. It was a theoretically predicted particle from our perspective.

Absolutely, these are the inherent universal potentials which are known only by their effects. They are theoretical potentials of spacetime itself. Things do really behave the way we decribe it in our symbolic scientific language.

For one, we are in agreement on many of the aspects I have tried to posit. And I believe our differences here are not that great.

Well yes, I do sometimes fail in presenting my perspective, but as long as the errors are not fatal, then the rest of my propositions are true or agreeable?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where do we agree?

 

The same can be said for almost any other particle. How is that factoid relevant here?

More philosophy...

Well that's the thing about semantics. You're saying the same thing we are, in practical terms, so we shouldn't be disagreeing. Until you start repeating them so many times as if we've missed something important. We haven't.

And it's problematic when it leads to you state things that are simply not true, such as "The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential." and "The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality."

Well, claiming the "universe is pseudo-intelligent" and "Higgs bosons don't exist in nature" are utterly unfounded assertions, so that's pretty fatal...

 

Write4U

Do tell me what's wrong with the term quasi-intelligent to describe the mathematical nature of nature.

It's not needed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's not wrong at all. It is perfectly suitable to describe the universe's mathematical nature.

The term Pseudo-intelligence is incorrect. Quasi-intelligent is a whole different state.

That is the main reason why we have religions. "Irreducible complexity" is the main theme of spiritualists, because it resembles a motivated intelligent creative force.

The term "quasi-intelligent" qualifies this apparent motivated intelligence as not a sentient being, but a purely implacable mathematical function based on the universal geometrics.

 

Does a "value" need to be physical? What if it is a mathematical pattern, like a Platonic solid.

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

There are no perfect Platonic solids in the entire universe. They are idealized patterns with very specific values and potentials. They are an ideal abstraction of a truly functional pattern, as much as E = Mc^2
An abstract universal constant.

 

having some resemblance

Mirriam Webster

Resembles Intelligence - but IT IS NOT

You stir up the muddy water just as it is becoming clear

Not needed to compare to sometimes which it isn't because you invite the percentage game

Remember the chimpanzee argument? Chimps are quasi human with over 98% human DNA so we should give them human status

It has been put forward for real

One problem - they are not human

Don't muddy settling water when you don't need to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thought I was counting things / stuff

If you wish to put a value (number) on a pattern feel free

Abstract art gets sold by abstract values all the time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Absolutely. Chimps are good people, especially the Bonobos.

 

NOT people and to call them quasi people would encourage stupid people to think having 98% same DNA is good enough

How would you like to fly in a quasi aircraft, with only 2% missing? After all 2% off isn't much

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I called them "good" people, not quasi people.

No, an aircraft is a quasi-bird. After all we copied flight from birds...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s chickens are good people too. Try to think of 3 bad things chickens do ......see......can't do it.
Chickens are good people.

 

How many aircraft have you flown in which mimic bird airodynamatics?

Good or quasi, a chickens or chimpanzee ain't people

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's nothing about a chicken that a deep fryer can't improve.

 

I have two hours flight time in my log-book. Did a few arial maneuvers just like a bird....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In a manner of speech......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it's true, people are actually "apes".......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.......not the other way around.............

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!