The Myth of Critical Thinking

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. socratus Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    I only say: there are many +/- similar Earth civilization in the infinite Universe ; T=OK

    . . . . and leave God - gods aside
    ===========
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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: Feb 25, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.
     
  8. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,960
    I think in a scrambled way you are talking about Physics

    Mathematical functions do not have intent true

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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: Feb 25, 2018
  10. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,960
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,989
    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.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    Pi is another;
    https://www.livescience.com/29197-what-is-pi.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

    When it comes to control;
    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).
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.

    Thank you for those encouraging words........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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: Feb 25, 2018
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    That is my main point, mathematical functions can be causal without intent (sentient motive).
     
  15. socratus Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    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 ?
    ============
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.
    https://everipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation/

    We're getting closer and closer, working backward to a starting point.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
  17. river

    Messages:
    10,855
    Define this " spacetime " fabric , outside mathematics , physically in space .
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    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.
    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.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    10,855
    Why ? Why a mathematical fractal construct ?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    Because fractal structures have been observed (or mathematically justified) everywhere we look, from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality.
    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: Feb 28, 2018
  21. river

    Messages:
    10,855
    Disagree

    Life is the most expressive of fractals .

    Non-living , are not .
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    Is there a difference? Is a spiral galaxy a living thing?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology
    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: Feb 28, 2018
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,339
    A few examples of fractals appearing in nature,
     

Share This Page