What is it about woo that upsets you?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Apr 23, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    Can you give me an example of universal "stuff" that does not have a relative value or does not function in a manner peculiar to that "stuff"?

    Yes, I am positing an EQUATION. The same thing presented from two different perspectives.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    But that is due to the relative scales of expression. Human maths have not yet penetrated the universal maths at Planck scale. But that does not mean the universe presents uncertainty at that scale, it is the human inability to observe and codify how the universe works at that scale. Universal maths are perfect at all scales, it's the human maths that lack precision at certain scales.
    Closely is a relative term, no? Human maths can only describe a small portion of the near infinite mathematical processes that occur in nature, every instant of time. It's the human maths that are limited, not the universal maths. Of course the universe doesn't know any of that, we do.

    Interesting juxtaposition isn't it?
    The universal math is perfect but it doesn't know that, it isn't conscious....x + x = 2x
    Human maths are imperfect and we do know that, we are conscious..........1 + 1 = 2.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    I don't think there's anything wrong with entertaining speculative ideas, like Tegmark's. If there's no merit whatsoever to what Tegmark is suggesting, math does have a pretty uncanny ability to describe and explain the physical world.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So you are doing the comparing, not me.
    There are no scales of expression of human mathematics. If there are "scales of expression" of something, that thing would be significantly different from human mathematics.
    Human beings do not in general describe mathematical processes via the math they use for physical analysis. That is because they are describing physical phenomena, which we find are not mathematical processes but rather empirical ones.
    In fact, human maths have not "penetrated universal maths", in the physical universe, at any scale.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    Empirical according to universal mathematical laws?
    Hmmmm......universal laws of behaviors in accordance to specific potentials do not exist?
    Gravity does not exist? Human maths have not penetrated the mathematics of Gravity at all, at any scale ?

    How is it we can land a Rover on Mars, in a mathematical manner that avoids it from being smashed into bits like any ordinary meteoroid? Isn't it the application of (braking) force, the thing the universe does not recognize?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    That is the inherent merit to what Tegmark is suggesting......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    In my Universe you would be considered strange

    I'm back in the colour Universe as the olfactory Universe was to hard to conduct research when I had the flu. The equations just did not work

    Translated to Earth primitive expressive mathematics Red + Red = Green looks like 1+1=2 (well close enough, the context and subtleties are missing)

    So again the Universe works

    NO MATHEMATICS (of any style) OR ANY COLOUR CODE (of any hue) SMELL (?)

    Beam me back please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    "The ultimate goal of mathematics is to eliminate any need for intelligent thought."
    Alfred N. Whitehead
    http://www.borisbukh.org/natural.html

    Yes, it shows the limitations of human mathematics. The universe does not recognize numbers, it recognizes "values" and "functions", much closer related to algebraic than to human number maths.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_(logic)
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    [/quote] In the same order; a) Causal dynamic triangulation. b) Colors are electromagnetic energy. c) An Odor, or odour, is caused by one or more volatilized chemical compounds.
    Natural Functions (causal processes) of Relative Values (variables) and Results (effect).

    Example of a natural algebraic function used by a brainless Slime mold; in x + 2 = 5 the letter x is unknown, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: x = 3.

    This is the subtractive algebraic method employed by the Slime mold to find the shortest route to food in a maze with 2 possible routes.
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17304486/slime-mold-swarm-intelligence-simon-garnier-video
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/ride-slime-mold-express

    Note: this is a brainless organism, yet displays a quasi-intelligent behavior which can only be classified as a natural mathematic process (function).
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    The Universe recognises NOTHING

    We, my colour coded friends and I, colourpomorphised the Universe (ssshhh don't tell) but it only helps us, with the common language of colourematics, understand the Universe

    Does nothing for the Universe

    Does not matter if we colour a reaction Red Blue Green it stubbornly reacts same same every moment

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    Well, the universe does not. Things within it must behave in accordance with natural laws, wether they recognise it or not.
    I don't doubt it, after all insects have no brains, they can recognize colors, (heat signatures, infrared, ultraviolet)?
    It doesn't need to. It all happens inside the Universe and the universe has no "needs" or "desires".
    Right, natural laws function independent of human thought. However, everything within the universe is subject to specific and recurring experiential empirical causal phenomena.

    Humans can only bear witness, and try to imitate some of the universally valid behaviors for our own practical purposes. The universal potentials generate these behaviors for no practical purpose. They are a result of dynamic spacetime geometry and stuff within it.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Physics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  16. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Thanks alot W4u, you mean I have to read Tegmark's paper and book to find out? Having done that yourself, can't you at least give a clue as to why you say:
    In answer to:
    ''In what way would Tegmark's idea alter the way scientists are studying reality today using mathematics?''
    Your horrible you are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    lol ^^

    I'm not Write4U, but...I don't think viewing math as an ''external reality,'' would affect how scientists use math, today. It's just a philosophical perspective; it doesn't change anything.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    OK, so far, W4U has not produced anything that suggests applying his 'Mathematical Universe' idea would yield any different results than not applying it.

    That makes it a semantic issue - a label.

    I'd suggest we leave it there until and unless W4U can think of some way it could have an impact on how we understand the world.
     
    sweetpea likes this.
  19. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    If scientists start taking the easy way out of things, '' ho, that's because reality is mathematical, no need to go further there in understanding the results''.
    If there is no way to test for reality itself being mathematical, then wouldn't you be pondering till the cows come home.
    How would scientists recognize the difference between their math models and reality's math, that's what I'm asking W4u, hoping that he has read the book.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    For macro events, yes, you can be very precise. Turns out, though, that at micro scales, things aren't as precise. In fact, we now have a whole field of study that describes cases where math doesn't work - where "mathematical precision" turns into probabilities and spooky actions.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Empirical. Not mathematical. Whether the nonhuman universe has - somewhere, somehow - chosen to describe its operations mathematically is unknown.
    No slime mold employs algebraic functions. Those are part of human mathematics.
    That hardly means math "doesn't work". Probability theory and chaos theory and so forth are perfectly sound mathematics, and the precision available from quantum theory is the highest we have.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Of course it does. Newtonian equations for motion don't work for high speeds, very large masses or atomic scale processes.

    So we create some new math to better describe those things. And that math works - until we find another level where that new math doesn't work. And then we create more.

    I have full faith that we will always be able to create math that serves as a useful tool for us to understand and manipulate the universe. We will likely never fully understand the underlying physics - which means that our math will never be 100% correct. But it's usually close enough.
    So is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead?
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,078
    There you have it. These phenomena may seem spooky and probabilistic to us, but would it make a difference if we knew they do have a strict mathematical order to them and it is us who are still lacking knowledge of the mathematics involved. Is that why we have a whole new field of study into those mysterious phenomena?

    Do you think that these phenomena happen randomly or that their is still an underlying order to these values and functions, as yet unknown to us? It doesn't seem to affect the rest of the orderly manner in which physical patterns become expressed. Or maybe it is a required natural function for regular physical pattern forming?

    But if Tegmark's Mathematical Universe offers nothing new, then why the resistance to the concept?
    It is not so much a question of adding a new functional aspect to the Universe, as gaining a better insight of its true nature.

    p.s. As it relates to woo, this might interest Magical Realist.
    For instance, if spooky action at a distance is a regular phenomenon, perhaps ghosts might be real. A sea change, wouldn't you say? Apparently spontaneous patterns forming in spacetime, but at large distances from their origin, spooky stuff!....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If individual pairs of particles can be entangled, can entire patterns be entangled?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019

Share This Page