Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

Do you not understand your contradiction here ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The laws of gravity determine your physical behavior in a gravitational field. We know what causes these Natural Laws. Andwe have translated these naturally logical functions into understandable mathematics.

No one disputes the mathematical aspects of nature. The debate is if Reality is only
mathematics

No, probability deals with frequency of expression, not the mathematical function (mechanics) how the event will become expressed.

I agree, physical objects consist of physical parts arranged in specific patterns. The formation of patterns is a mathematical function. It determines the result of the event and explicated pattern in physical reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To your last statement . Wrong

No , mathematical patterns nor function determines any thing .

Mathematics , of patterns and function , is a consequence of physical interactions between things , not because of numbers .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you are confusing "relative value" with "logical function".

 

And you are confusing , relative and logic with numbers as being the essence of any physical object .

Of which they are not

 

At least you agree that mathematics exist. Do you also agree that physical interactions depend on the relative values and the logical operands, the mathematics?

Do you think physical interactions have any wiggle room or that identical physical interactions always must result in the same and predictable result? That would be the mathematical aspect of the universe, no?

 

No

Probabilities is a mean ( an average ) .

There is always an exception

 

No, that's how you interpret my position. You keep talking about numbers, but I am not talking about symbolic languages.

I am speaking of universal potentials, you know, the possible reality our spacetime universe is capable of producing and why.

You deny science then?

 

Physical reality is based on "exceptions" (rare) or on "inclusions" (common)?

I always look for common universal denominators. Mathematics is one of them.

 

Explain further

Nothing to do with anything I'm discussing

 

River used the word 'form'. You used the word 'describe'.

If I describe a magic snowman, that doesn't cause him to form for realz.

 

Numbers can never produce a physical form .

 

These two statements appear to be directly contradictory:

Although, upon reflection, the first one wasn't asserting that the existence of numbers are the essence of any physical object.

In which case, I guess ... I agree with River....

 

IMO, it is the age old duality of subjective and objective interpretation of the meaning and functions of the inherent self-ordering universal imperatives, or as humans call it, the mathematics of universal laws.

Of course not. I am not claiming that at all.
There is a name for such an emanation; Tulpa. I don't believe in physical tulpas.

You can only describe what you have already observed. The description is the observation of the orderly function based on the extant values and potentials in the formation of physical patterns. Which we can express in mathematical equations.

Tegmark ask; "what's the molecular difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle"?
There isn't any difference at all! It is a matter of how the molecules are arranged (the molecular patterns) and the resulting functionality which determines whether the beetle is dead or alive.

 

W4u, when you say:

you are not talking science, so no one is "denying science", they are only denying your personal opinion.

 

You just contradicted your yourself.
Asked what is the molecular difference, you said there isn't one, then immediately went on to mention the molecular difference.

 

Yes of course , to your last statement .

Yet science has yet to prove that numbers alone , in and of its self , can produce any physical object .

 

They don't. Numbers are a human invention. They describe things, much like words do.

 

True , but thats not my point .

No Universal number(s) of any kind produce any physical object

 

IMO, the Implicate Order as proposed by David Bohm is very much science. I am not inventing this stuff, I read it and understood it. Much as our cosmologists are reading the information inherent in the universe and understanding the way it works.