The Myth of Critical Thinking

Write4U said:
Thus you are defending the position that
god is a sentience which uses mathematics to purposefully evolve the universe?
Click to expand...

I only say: there are many +/- similar Earth civilization in the infinite Universe ; T=OK

. . . . and leave God - gods aside
===========
 
Last edited:
socratus said:
I only say: there are many +/- similar Earth civilization in the infinite Universe ; T=OK

. . . . and leave God - gods aside
===========
Click to expand...
oh, ok, if you propose that probability and mathematical functions are in fact how the universe works, then I agree.

Thus motive (intention) is not required. I can agree with that also.
 
Michael 345 said:
So humans create mathematics so that mathematics can create the solar system and a Earth which can support life

Care to map out how such mechanism works please? :)
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I said or implied. Mathematics is our term for natural imperatives how some things can or must happen and how some things cannot happen.

I find nothing mysterious in that and because of it's inherent logic humans have been able to translate some or most of these orderly functions (patterns) with a symbolic language which we have named mathematics. But these natural orderly (and ordering) functions (imperatives) existed long before humans existed.

That they happen at all is a probabilistic event, given enough time, space and environment (as Hazen demonstrated)

But after all this you cannot use the term "aim of mathematical functions", which inplies intent. It just happens to work that way.
 
Last edited:
socratus said:
Today formulas of physics really look ''like a unfortunate child'' Why? Because they don't connect in one simple and logical chain of conclusions that explain Nature, the evolution of Nature.
Click to expand...
Actually they do, but considering the vast distances involved, the connections are probabilistic and thus require time to unfold.

However we have created such a connective chain (at the local level) in Cern. We were able to mathematically create our best guess under what conditions the Higgs boson might become explicated as an observable particle in our reality. And our applied maths confirmed that the theoretical maths used were correct and warranted a trip to Stockholm.
 
Write4U said:
But after all this you cannot use the term "aim of mathematical functions", which inplies intent. It just happens to work that way.
Click to expand...

I think in a scrambled way you are talking about Physics

Mathematical functions do not have intent true

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
I think in a scrambled way you are talking about Physics

Mathematical functions do not have intent true ........:)
Click to expand...
Nor to physical interactions, except for sentient organisms.

Mating is an intentional physical interaction, but cell division is a mathematical process
Increase of population is a mathematical process.

Does that mean the universe works intentionally the way it does or is sentient in the way we understand the term?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Does that mean the universe works intentionally the way it does or is sentient in the way we understand the term?
Click to expand...

Universe runs via Physics

Certainly not sentient

Sentinent (really a bit wider) life runs close to eratic random chaos since those without brain are at the mercy of the Physics operating around them

Life with some senses are reactive to a slight degree still held captive by Physics

Higher life has some ability to manipulate Physics (not break) but considering the brain cannot predict the future it to is somewhat impinged upon by chaos

:)
 
Write4U said:
Did you read the rest of the post?
Click to expand...
No.

I don't know the motives behind the question. I wanted to convey that if I had to use that kind of rhetoric in conversation that I should pause and think that my efforts would be better suited elsewhere. Nonetheless, your posts are way more intriguing than politics.
 
socratus said:
You say: ''Law of Nature are controlled by the mathematics of "values" ''
To control something needs mind / brain.
Click to expand...
I disagree with statement. There is a difference between intentionally exercising mathematically configured control systems and control systems inherent in the mathematical/physical functions themselves. You cannot use addition when the intent is subraction. Mathematics is not subject to humans, humans are subject to Mathematics which in nature are expressed as certain specific patterns (using the term "patterns" in its broadest scope), as a result of recurring regularities to certain observable events and their mathematical potentials.

The Fibonacci Sequence is but one such regularly occurring patterns.
aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1My84NDcvb3JpZ2luYWwvRmlib25hY2NpLXJhYmJpdHMuanBnPzEzNzEyNDk4NDk=


https://www.livescience.com/37470-fibonacci-sequence.html

Pi is another;
Pi (π), the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet, is used to represent the most widely known mathematical constant. By definition, pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. In other words, pi equals the circumference divided by the diameter (π = c/d). Conversely, the circumference is equal to pi times the diameter (c = πd). No matter how large or small a circle is, pi will always work out to be the same number.
Click to expand...
https://www.livescience.com/29197-what-is-pi.html
Pi,
The number π (/paɪ/) is a mathematical constant. Originally defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, it now has various equivalent definitions and appears in many formulas in all areas of mathematics and physics. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter "π" since the mid-18th century, though it is also sometimes spelled out as "pi".

Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction (equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern).
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

When it comes to control;
Control;
Much more than even physics, control is a mathematically oriented science. Control principles are always expressed in mathematical form and are potentially applicable to any concrete situation. At the same time, it must be emphasized that success in the use of the abstract principles of control depends in roughly equal measure on basic scientific knowledge in the specific field of application, be it engineering, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, econometrics, or any of the social sciences.
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/science/control-theory-mathematics

IMO, The Fibonacci Sequence is a causal mathematical function to many specific pattern, whereas Pi is a recurring value, an associated result (measurement) of many patterns (if it is causal, don't know).
 
Beer w/Straw said:
No.

I don't know the motives behind the question. I wanted to convey that if I had to use that kind of rhetoric in conversation that I should pause and think that my efforts would be better suited elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Oh, they have been!

I try to follow normal presentation format
a) state what you are going to talk about (in this case if mathematics = sentience).
b) talk (explain) your perspective and reasons (for posing the question}
c) conclude with a summation, and wait for a response to the entire argument as posited.

Nonetheless, your posts are way more intriguing than politics.
Click to expand...
Thank you for those encouraging words........:biggrin:

p.s. English is my second language and what may seem pedantic rhetoric is offered with the greatest respect and without any other intent than to try to be as precise as I can and in doing so, contribute to the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
However we have created such a connective chain (at the local level) in Cern.
We were able to mathematically create our best guess under what conditions
the Higgs boson might become explicated as an observable particle in our reality.
And our applied maths confirmed that the theoretical maths used were correct
and warranted a trip to Stockholm.
Click to expand...
Ha
Write4U said:
under what conditions the Higgs boson might become explicated
as an observable particle in our reality.
Click to expand...

To find Higgs boson was needed deep vacuum and high energy
The Higgs boson is not first (!) and not last (!) an elementary particle
in the Standard Model of particle physics
The modern ''scientific'' idea says: more deep vacuum and more
high energy and we can find new particles . . . . .
Somebody wrote:
''Sorry to announce: There will be no more new particles,
the Higgs completed the Standard Model ''
Question: is LHC a museum now ?
============
 
socratus said:
Ha


To find Higgs boson was needed deep vacuum and high energy
The Higgs boson is not first (!) and not last (!) an elementary particle
in the Standard Model of particle physics
The modern ''scientific'' idea says: more deep vacuum and more
high energy and we can find new particles . . . . .
Somebody wrote:
''Sorry to announce: There will be no more new particles,
the Higgs completed the Standard Model ''
Question: is LHC a museum now ?
============
Click to expand...
Well, if a knowledgeable scientist says that the Higgs completes the Standard Model, that may well be true for that Model.
He doesn't claim its a TOE, which as you observed probably needs considerable more study of a place which has been beyond our observation. But we are getting there, step by step. As Tegmark admits that even in his Mathematical Universe proposal there are still some fundamental questions, which may possibly be a simple equation. It's the proof that uses the bulk of our mathematics.

IMO, if there is a generic creative force of cause and effect, it has to be simple as well as subtle by implication.

Bohm called it "Wholeness and the Implicate order", a cascading set of hierarchical orderings from the most subtle (enfolded order) to gross expression (unfolded order) in our reality.
But any hierarchy of mathematical orderings is an evolutionary process, with a fundamental starting point.
http://gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Another proposal of "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" by Renate Loll, et al, presents a hypothesis of how the universe itself unfolds in a exponential form of a simple fractal formula.
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
https://everipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation/

We're getting closer and closer, working backward to a starting point.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Define this " spacetime " fabric , outside mathematics , physically in space .
Click to expand...
Spacetime is not a physical thing, it is a geometric condition and can only be described as a mathematical fractal construct.
Hence the term "causal dynamical triangulation" (CDT) by the Loll group of scientists.
In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is a combining of three-dimensional Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

Note that 3 dimensionality is not physical thing, it is an evolving configuration. Time itself obviously has no physical properties.

But if you are asking about what physical things can exist in this condition, then my vote goes to String or M theories.
In non-technical terms, M-theory presents an idea about the basic substance of the universe. So far no experimental evidence exists showing that M-theory is a description of the real world. Nevertheless, it is the leading contender for a universal "Theory of Everything" that unifies gravity with other forces such as electromagnetism: M-theory is the only theory known to elegantly unify quantum mechanics with general relativity's gravitational force in an mathematically consistent way. In comparison, other theories such as loop quantum gravity are considered less elegant because they posit gravity to be completely different from forces such as the electromagnetic force
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory
 
river said:
Why ? Why a mathematical fractal construct ?
Click to expand...
Because fractal structures have been observed (or mathematically justified) everywhere we look, from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality.
Since 1986, however, quite a large number of different cosmological theories exhibiting fractal properties have been proposed. And while Linde’s theory shows fractality at scales likely larger than the observable universe, theories like Causal dynamical triangulation[9] and Quantum Einstein gravity[10] are fractal at the opposite extreme, in the realm of the ultra-small near the Planck scale. These recent theories of quantum gravity describe a fractal structure for spacetime itself, and suggest that the dimensionality of space evolves with time. Specifically; they suggest that reality is 2D at the Planck scale, and that spacetime gradually becomes 4D at larger scales. French astronomer Laurent Nottale first suggested the fractal nature of spacetime in a paper on Scale Relativity published in 1992,[11] and published a book on the subject of Fractal Space-Time in 1993
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

The Fibonacci Sequence is just one example, observable at many scales of expression.
IMO, this tendency to form fractal functions and constructs is a matter of efficiency.

Do flowers "know' they grow in a fractal manner? No, they don't need to. It is just an efficient evolutionary growth pattern in many plant species, but also observable at galactic scales.

Philosophically and physically this seems inevitable in an evolving self-ordering system.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Disagree

Life is the most expressive of fractals .

Non-living , are not .
Click to expand...
Is there a difference? Is a spiral galaxy a living thing?
Back in November 1994, Scientific American featured an article on its cover written by physicist Andrei Linde, entitled "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe"[18] whose heading stated that "Recent versions of the inflationary scenario describe the universe as a self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes," and which described Linde's theory of chaotic eternal inflation in some detail.

In July 2008, Scientific American featured an article on Causal dynamical triangulation,[19] written by the three scientists who propounded the theory, which again suggests that the universe may have the characteristics of a fractal.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology
In mathematics, a fractal is an abstract object used to describe and simulate naturally occurring objects. Artificially created fractals commonly exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales.[1] It is also known as expanding symmetry or evolving symmetry. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similarpattern. An example of this is the Menger sponge.[2] Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in small magnifications of the Mandelbrot set.[3][4][5][6] Fractals also include the idea of a detailed pattern that repeats itself.
Click to expand...
Still later, Mandelbrot settled on this use of the language: "...to use fractal without a pedantic definition, to use fractal dimension as a generic term applicable to all the variants."
Click to expand...
The general consensus is that theoretical fractals are infinitely self-similar, iterated, and detailed mathematical constructs having fractal dimensions, of which many examples have been formulated and studied in great depth. Fractals are not limited to geometric patterns, but can also describe processes in time. Fractal patterns with various degrees of self-similarity have been rendered or studied in images, structures and sounds[21] and found in nature,,technology,,art, architecture, and law. Fractals are of particular relevance in the field of chaos theory, since the graphs of most chaotic processes are fractal
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

The neural network of a brain is a fractal structure. I would not be surprised to find that we think fractally.
 
Last edited:
A few examples of fractals appearing in nature,
Natural phenomena with fractal features[edit]
Further information: Patterns in nature

Approximate fractals found in nature display self-similarity over extended, but finite, scale ranges. The connection between fractals and leaves, for instance, is currently being used to determine how much carbon is contained in trees.[52]

Phenomena known to have fractal features include:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top