Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

We DO NOT work out a formula and then go looking how to construct a lump of stuff to fit the formula.
The Higgs boson?
We make a lot of stuff that does not naturally appear, but we use mathematics to formulate these mathematically "possible" substances for all kinds of "artificial" chemistry. Plastic is no more than another biological derivative.
What is the chemistry of plastic?
Plastics, also called polymers, are produced by the conversion of natural products or by the synthesis from primary chemicals generally coming from oil, natural gas, or coal. Most plastics are based on the carbon atom. Silicones, which are based on the silicon atom, are an exception.
plastics.americanchemistry.com › How-Plastics-Are-Made
We DO NOT observe formula laying around and think "That could be useful"
Yes we do. Earlier I gave an example of a mathematician with no interest in physics, who developed some theoretical mathematics which decades later proved to be the very mathematics used by some observed natural phenomena. Saved the physicists a lot of headaches working out the functional mathematics.
In his 2014 book on the MUH, Tegmark argues that the resolution is not that we invent the language of mathematics, but that we discover the structure of mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
 
The Higgs boson?

We DO NOT work out a formula and then go looking how to construct a lump of stuff to fit the formula

Read carefully, VERY careful
  • we DO NOT work out a formula (first)
  • and then go looking how to construct a lump of stuff (the operative word is construct . We can go LOOKING, but we don't go MAKING)
  • to fit the formula
Yes we do. Earlier I gave an example of a mathematician with no interest in physics, who developed some theoretical mathematics which decades later proved to be the very mathematics used by some observed natural phenomena. Saved the physicists a lot of headaches working out the functional mathematics.

So a mathematician with no interest in physics developed (invented) some mathematics ie didn't find laying around on pavement? in a cupboard? at bottom of ocean?

Developed - NOT .... observe formula laying around and think "That could be useful"

:)
 
SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ANY ABILITY FOR MATHEMATICS TO ORDER THE UNIVERSE
Mathematics is not a physical thing, it is an inherent potential of the spacetime fabric. It orders itself! The universe doesn't know this, it doesn't need to know. It already had self-ordering the mathematics down since the chaotic beginning.

It's the Universe that self-orders in a logical (mathematical) fashion because that is logically the most efficient way of distributing universal energy potentials. This behavior appears to be intelligent at times (hence the gods), but it only looks like it is intelligent and can only behave in accordance to mathematical permissions and restrictions.
The above (quasi-intelligent) is your anthropomorphic take on the Universe and is your downfall
Why? Computers are quasi intelligent. Quasi-Intelligence has nothing to do with biology or living things
Quasi-Intelligent
(Class IV): Seemingly intelligent; Quasi-Intelligent beings (the universe itself) often mimick intelligence, either through reproduction, imitation, or otherwise.
(highlighted mine)

https://thefutureuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Intelligence_Classification

Evolution via Natural Selection is an abstract quasi intelligent universal mathematical function, which over the span of some 13.5 B years has given us the magnificent view of the exquisite mathematically distributed quantities and patterns throughout the universe, and the incredible variety of living things around us.

All based on the mathematical potentials and behaviors of fundamental chemistry and mineralogy and the predictable behaviors of the fundamental forces. (Robert Hazen)

Mathematical Minerals: A History of Petrophysical Petrography, John H. Doveton
First Online: 26 June 2018
13kDownloads

Abstract
The quantitative estimation of mineralogy from wireline petrophysical logs began as an analytical stepchild. The calculation of porosity in reservoir lithologies is affected by mineral variability, and methods were developed to eliminate these components. Simple inversion methods were applied in pioneer applications by mainframe computers to a limited suite of digital log data.
Over time, the value of lithological characterization of reservoirs and resource plays has been recognized. At the same time, the introduction of newer petrophysical measurements, particularly geochemical logs, in conjunction with increasingly sophisticated algorithms, has increased confidence in mineral profiles from logs as a routine evaluation tool.
[/quote] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-78999-6_24

Quorum sensing in bacteria is a quasi intelligent ability for communicating and distributing chemical words (auto-inducers), so that bacteria are abele to act in unison when a certain bacterial density is detected. COUNTING!!!!

Ask why we rely on mathematics for everything. The obvious answer is mathematics work because it is compatible with the relational values and mathematical functions which drive the evolutionary processes (mechanics) of all things, including the universe itself.
 
We DO NOT work out a formula and then go looking how to construct a lump of stuff to fit the formula
Read carefully, VERY careful
we DO NOT work out a formula (first)
Nor does a mathematical universe.
and then go looking how to construct a lump of stuff (the operative word is construct . We can go LOOKING, but we don't go MAKING) to fit the formula
Neither does the Universe. See, the universe does not know mathematics. It IS mathematical in essence. It is the nature of the beast and without us the universe would look exactly the way it does now, except the earth would look a lot healthier due to bad mathematics we are using to change our natural environment when using Universal mathematics to build new stuff and toys.
The term for chemical evolution is "polymerization", I believe. Progressively complex mathematical linear molecular arrangements, with specific values and potentials. :) .
So a mathematician with no interest in physics developed (invented) some mathematics ie didn't find laying around on pavement? in a cupboard? at bottom of ocean?
Yes, developed it in his head, a product of pure mathematical logic. Turned out be some natural constant. I posted and linked it earlier.
Developed - NOT .... observe formula laying around and think "That could be useful"
:)
No, apparently he was a mathematical doodler, like the unknown guy in Russia who received a 10 million dollar (?) prize for solving an apparently unsolvable mathematical equation. That came in useful...:)

Peter Higgs mathematically predicted the very existence of the Higgs boson which had never been observed. How can one make a prediction of the "emergence" of a "specific quantum value" from the quantum foam, unless one uses the proper mathematically ordered mechanics to "materialize" the predicted boson from it's quantum field.

A Nobel prize in physics awarded to a mathematician is quite a leap in conceptual disciplines, no?


Some people just love mathematics, after all it's "the language of the Universe"......:)
 
Last edited:
This behavior appears to be intelligent at times (hence the gods), but it only looks like it is intelligent

Never has for me, and think gods come more from trying to explain Universe (not Universe intelligence) ACTIVITY ie gods upstairs blowing wind, throwing down lighting

it is an inherent potential of the spacetime fabric
It's a LANGUAGE. Any other interpretation is on the persons view

quasi-

seemingly apparently but not really

Problems arise calling something quasi-because it skews thinking towards the subject actually being IT

Nor does a mathematical universe.

See there is your problem - or my denial

You appear to have concluded (settled) on the Universe as being mathematical construct. I have no such thought

It's a lot of stuff which follows physics

Yes, developed it in his head, a product of pure mathematical logic. Turned out be some natural constant. I posted and linked it earlier.

He developed something in his head, IN OTHER WORDS, it was DEVELOPED. Not just pick up off the floor

How can one make a prediction of the "emergence" of a "specific quantum value" from the quantum foam, unless one uses the proper mathematically ordered mechanics to "materialize" the predicted boson from it's quantum field.

Observations of reality (physics in operation) noticed a discrepancy in the mathematics being used to describe said reality. To find the particle the LHC was built and particle found

Note this is where we appear to clash

I contend The Universe is stuff (reality) and physics runs the stuff. Observations of the physics of the stuff leads to the missing stuff being found

Your take appears to be mathematics runs the universe

Peter Higgs mathematically predicted the very existence of the Higgs boson

Only after the physical world was found to be wanting ie observations first THEN mathematics

Sleep time

:)
 
Never has for me, and think gods come more from trying to explain Universe (not Universe intelligence) ACTIVITY ie gods upstairs blowing wind, throwing down lighting.
Right it's the "activity" by unseen powers that gave rise to the "assumption" of sky beings (gods). This was proven by observation of Chimpanzee behavior during thunder storms.
It's a LANGUAGE. Any other interpretation is on the persons view
No, ability to "do work" is called "potential". Mathematical mechanics are not language, they are inherent potentials. "Values" are language, a number is like a word, it contains "information". Bacteria and insects have chemical language and they do communicate, even without brains.
seemingly apparently but not really
Right, mathematical behaviors may seem intelligent, but because there is no "intent", it must be called "quasi- intelligent"
Problems arise calling something quasi-because it skews thinking towards the subject actually being IT
That's not my problem. That's a subjective limitation of the observer.
What sets mathematics apart from other languages is that unlike other languages, maths are self-referential giving the appearance of "internalizing" information .
Internalize, psychology
1. make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
"people learn gender stereotypes and internalize them"
" slime mold and paramecium learn by internalizing stereotypical environmental information"

IMO, ability to internalize and learn from experience is quasi intelligent, a form of proto-intelligence which over time evolves into a true self-aware intelligence such as found in higher forms of biological systems.
See there is your problem - or my denial . You appear to have concluded (settled) on the Universe as being mathematical construct. I have no such thought. It's a lot of stuff which follows physics.
If you can claim that stuff follows physics, why can I not claim that physicking (poetic liberty) is an interaction of stuff which follows mathematical imperatives, such as in medicine. (Based on your meter reading of 150, take 10 units of insulin.)
IMO, the evidence of a mathematically driven Universe is overwhelming. I don't call that cognition "settling for", but the "greatest intellectual achievement" of the human brain.

He developed something in his head, IN OTHER WORDS, it was DEVELOPED. Not just pick up off the floor
He developed the mathematics for another purpose. Turns out that the maths were usable for an unrelated natural function.
If anything, that proves the mathematical nature of natural behaviors i.e "constants".
Observations of reality (physics in operation) noticed a discrepancy in the mathematics being used to describe said reality. To find the particle the LHC was built and particle found.
Right, mathematical analysis and correct mathematics, programmed into the LHC, produced the Higgs, for an "instant" before it decayed into simpler "values".
Note this is where we appear to clash
I contend The Universe is stuff (reality) and physics runs the stuff. Observations of the physics of the stuff leads to the missing stuff being found.
Not in the case of the Higgs. It was mathematics that lead to the manifestation of the "missing values".
Your take appears to be mathematics runs the universe.
Not quite, My take is that the universe is a mathematical object and everything in it is subject to the mathematics of the universe.
Example: a triangle is a mathematical object and every property of a triangle is a related mathematical "value" .
Only after the physical world was found to be wanting ie observations first THEN mathematics
:)
But that is from a human perspective! The physical world and its mathematical properties never changed to get it correct. It evolved from Chaos into its current "organization". It was mathematically correct from the beginning and perhaps even before anything physical existed. Mathematical interaction based on intrinsic "values" and "mathematically self-ordering processes may just be a Cosmic Truth.

Only after the human observation of the physical world was found wanting (theism)
, did humans invent the symbolic equivalents to the universal mathematics and thereby was able to mathematically discover the discrepancies and correct the original mathematical errors. The birth of Science. The Universe (physical world) never changed it's behavior, it was always logical and translatable into mathematical "relational values" and "mathematical functions".

Physical is what it is (to humans), Mathematically is how it works (universally).

Has anyone ever mentioned that the "scientific method" itself is a discipline based on mathematical rigor, a formalized systematic observation and analysis of chronological dynamic evolutionary interactions using extant relational values and mathematical (algebraic) functions, universal constants..

It was humans who had to discover and utilize mathematics to "learn" what makes the physical world tick and how it all functions.
 
Last edited:
Trying to further explain my perspective on "mathematics"

Philosophy of Mathematics
First published Tue Sep 25, 2007; substantive revision Tue Sep 26, 2017

1. Philosophy of Mathematics, Logic, and the Foundations of Mathematics
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. At first blush, mathematics appears to study abstract entities. This makes one wonder what the nature of mathematical entities consists in and how we can have knowledge of mathematical entities. If these problems are regarded as intractable, then one might try to see if mathematical objects can somehow belong to the concrete world after all.
If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science.
Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this also the case of the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way: by deduction from basic principles.
The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics......more
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
 
Last edited:
This may further explain my perspective. (Downloadable pdf)

Space and Time in the Foundations of Mathematics, or some challenges in the interactions with other sciences
Summary : Our relation to phenomenal space has been largely disregarded, and with good motivations, in the prevailing foundational analysis of Mathematics. The collapse of Euclidean certitudes, more than a century ago, excluded ‘’geometric judgments’’ from certainty and contributed, by this, to isolate the foundation of Mathematics from other disciplines. After the success of the logical approach, it is time to broaden our foundational tools and reconstruct, also in that respect, the interactions with other sciences.
The way space (and time) organize knowledge is a cross-disciplinary issue that will be briefly examined in Mathematical Physics, Computer Science and Biology.
This programmatic paper focuses on an epistemological approach to foundations, at the core of which is the analysis of the ‘’knowledge process’’, as a constitutive path from cognitive experiences to mathematical concepts and structures.....more
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.433.3604&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 
picked this up from another thread, but looks like it's applicable to this thread as well.

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore
https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F09%2F8-14-CMB-signal-inflation-1200x980-1200x980.jpg
The quantum fluctuations inherent to space, stretched across the Universe during cosmic inflation,... [+]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/#7c7e0190b45e

What this clearly shows is the evolutionary self-ordered regularities from an initial state of Chaos. Any ordering process requires mathematical consistenccy of processing extant relational values via fundamental algebraic mathematical functions.

This is a really good paper with interesting observations.
 
Last edited:
Problems arise calling something quasi-because it skews thinking towards the subject actually being IT

Exactly , the Physical will always be fundamental to any Mathematics understanding Reality .


That's not my problem. That's a subjective limitation of the observer.
What sets mathematics apart from other languages is that unlike other languages, maths are self-referential giving the appearance of "internalizing" information .
Internalize, psychology
1. make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
"people learn gender stereotypes and internalize them"
" slime mold and paramecium learn by internalizing stereotypical environmental information"

IMO, ability to internalize and learn from experience is quasi intelligent, a form of proto-intelligence which over time evolves into a true self-aware intelligence such as found in higher forms of biological systems.

Highlighted

And Understands the difference , these Higher forms of Intelligence , between Shape , Three dimensionally , And Mathematics .

Understanding that without Shape , A Physical Object , Mathematics would not be possible .
 
Understanding that without Shape , A Physical Object , Mathematics would not be possible
OTOH, the existence of "shape" (PATTERNS) is proof of the mathematical self-ordering of "relational values" via mathematical laws.
Our understanding of shapes does not create shapes. They existed long before man was able to add 1 + 1.

p.s. an Octopus can shape-shift to completely copy a rock or a coral. They understand the concept of shape better than any other organism on earth.....o_O

It is suspected that the octopus can somehow perceive shape and color with it's entire body.
That may seem weird, but what's weirder is the fact that octopuses are colorblind.
IMO, it's more likely that for the octopus color cognition is a subconscious interoceptive function and the octopus perceives and processes color imitation as a subconscious survival mechanism.......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
OTOH, the existence of "shape" (PATTERNS) is proof of the mathematical self-ordering of "relational values" via mathematical laws.
Our understanding of shapes does not create shapes. They existed long before man was able to add 1 + 1.

p.s. an Octopus can shape-shift to completely copy a rock or a coral. They understand the concept of shape better than any other organism on earth.....o_O

To your first statement ; Before the highlighted .

How is a Sphere a pattern ?

To Your Highlighted ; directly below the above .

What created Shapes ; Write4U .
 
Last edited:
To your first statement ; Before the highlighted .

How is a Sphere a pattern ?
It may well have been the very first emergent pattern in nature, being that it is entirely self-referential and the most efficient of all other patterns.

The Universe, Stars, Eggs, Cells, all started as spherical patterns.

Mikrofoto.de-volvox-8.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#/media/File:Mikrofoto.de-volvox-8.jpg

pnas.1600296113fig01.jpg

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868417/figure/fig01/
To Your Highlighted ; directly below the above .
What created Shapes ; Write4U .
The self-ordering "guiding equations" of the mathematical Nature of the physical Universe.
 
Sphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the concept in three-dimensional geometry. For other uses, see Sphere (disambiguation).
"Globose" redirects here. For the neuroanatomic structure, see Globose nucleus.

A two-dimensional perspective projection of a sphere
A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα—sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a ball (viz., analogous to the circular objects in two dimensions, where a "circle" circumscribes its "disk").
Like a circle in a two-dimensional space, a sphere is defined mathematically as the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point in a three-dimensional space.[2] This distance r is the radius of the ball, which is made up from all points with a distance less than (or, for a closed ball, less than or equal to) r from the given point, which is the center of the mathematical ball. These are also referred to as the radius and center of the sphere, respectively. The longest straight line segment through the ball, connecting two points of the sphere, passes through the center and its length is thus twice the radius; it is a diameter of both the sphere and its ball.
While outside mathematics the terms "sphere" and "ball" are sometimes used interchangeably, in mathematics the above distinction is made between a sphere, which is a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in a three-dimensional Euclidean space, and a ball, which is a three-dimensional shape that includes the sphere and everything inside the sphere (a closed ball), or, more often, just the points inside, but not on the sphere (an open ball). The distinction between ball and sphere has not always been maintained and especially older mathematical references talk about a sphere as a solid. This is analogous to the situation in the plane, where the terms "circle" and "disk" can also be confounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere
 
It may well have been the very first emergent pattern in nature, being that it is entirely self-referential and the most efficient of all other patterns.

The Universe, Stars, Eggs, Cells, all started as spherical patterns.

Mikrofoto.de-volvox-8.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#/media/File:Mikrofoto.de-volvox-8.jpg

pnas.1600296113fig01.jpg

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868417/figure/fig01/
The self-ordering "guiding equations" of the mathematical Nature of the physical Universe.

You have not shown how Mathematics is Physical . Without Any Reference to anything Physical .
 
You have not shown how Mathematics is Physical . Without Any Reference to anything Physical .
It is an abstract object just like the Platonic solids. These are all fundamental self-forming patterns to the shapes and structure of the universe and stuff inside it.
Mathematics is an abstract "essence" of the Universal Potential.
 
It is an abstract object just like the Platonic solids. These are all fundamental self-forming patterns to the shapes and structure of the universe and stuff inside it.
Mathematics is an abstract "essence" of the Universal Potential.

The Perfect Shape . That is your Basis . Of Mathematics in this Universe .
 
It is an abstract object just like the Platonic solids. These are all fundamental self-forming patterns to the shapes and structure of the universe and stuff inside it.
Mathematics is an abstract "essence" of the Universal Potential.

Of Course .

But Only If It Is based On the Reality Of A Physical Universe .

It is the Physical , Properties of the Physical , that verifies the Mathematics .
 
Of Course .

But Only If It Is based On the Reality Of A Physical Universe .

It is the Physical , Properties of the Physical , that verifies the Mathematics .
Sure, but does that prove the Universe was able to become manifest without any mathematics?

Religious people assume that God created the Universe. But why not ask if the Universe created God?

What's the difference between God and Mathematics?
 
river said:
Of Course .

But Only If It Is based On the Reality Of A Physical Universe .

It is the Physical , Properties of the Physical , that verifies the Mathematics .


Sure, but does that prove the Universe was able to become manifest without any mathematics?

Religious people assume that God created the Universe. But why not ask if the Universe created God?

What's the difference between God and Mathematics?

Highlighted

No , It wasn't suppose to .

Any Physical Thing has an Inherent Mathematical Nature . Because it is a Three Dimensional Object . Hence is Measurable .

But to say That Mathematics Creates the Physical is Frankly Wrong .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top