Write4U:

Let's take stock and see how you went in trying to answer the six matters I put to you in post #429.

This was question #1:

**1. **You wrote "I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles." This is in conflict with Tegmark's claim that *everything *is mathematics. According to Tegmark, there is literally nothing except mathematics.

Please post so that we know that you recognise and accept that your beliefs are different from Tegmark's.

The following is your response:

That's not how I see it. It just means that the Universe is mathematically self-referential at all levels .

Do you

*deny* that Tegmark claims that

*everything is mathematics*?

Do you

*understand* what it is that Tegmark is hypothesising, or not?

Based on your reply, it is not clear that you understand and accept that your views are different from Tegmark's, on fundamental matters. Those differences mean that you can no longer hide behind Tegmark. The ideas you are expressing are

*your own*, not Tegmark's. Your ideas are different.

Going to the content of your ideas: they appear to be incoherent. What does "mathematically self-referential at all levels" mean? I don't think it means anything at all; you're just making stuff up as you go. It's just word salad piled upon word salad.

At the smallest level, physics ceases and only abstract relational values exist and interact in a regular and regulated manner, as expressions of an unconscious, but knowable (by us) mathematical Universe.

You just flip flopped again. If "only abstract relational values exist" and those "values" are mathematical, then you're saying that nothing but mathematics exists (and that would be in line with Tegmark's hypothesis). But that's the opposite of what you said earlier.

Which is it? Have you actually worked out what

*you* believe about this?

Let me put it simply, a striaghtforward question: do you believe that the only thing in the universe is mathematics (i.e. everything is "made of mathematics")? Yes or no?

For now, I don't care

*why* you believe it's "yes" or "no". I just want you to be consistent. Tell me whether it's "yes" or "no". Don't beat about the bush. Don't flip flop back and forth. Just tell me

* what* you believe. Until you've done that, it's pointless to even talk about the "why" with you. Note: I do not want a rambling essay with random made-up terms. I want "yes" or "no" to my question. It's straightforward and should be simple for you to answer. Can you answer it?

Moving on, this was question #2:

**2. **You have repeatedly claimed that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order." Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.

Here's your response:

Let's take Chaos theory to start with.

Assumption: The BB began in a state of utter chaos. ok?

This is not an answer to the question I asked you.

Is it your claim that "chaos theory" is a "chaotic condition without any order"? Bear in mind that chaos theory is an area of mathematical study. It would be impossible to say anything coherent about chaos theory if it had no "orderly" aspects.

Tell me why you assume the BB began in a state of utter chaos. What does that mean to you? How are you measuring the "amount of chaos", for instance?

So the question is not if there exists a self-ordering system as eventually expressed as physics, but at what level this self-ordering guidance system is present as an original excellence in spacetime.

It is your claim that "The universe started as a chaotic condition

*without any order". *That is a quote from you, but it's clear I'm not putting words into your mouth. After all, you just wrote "The BB began in a state of

*utter chaos", *confirming the original quote.

How are you going to wriggle out of this contradiction? You're claiming a mathematically ordered universe, but you can suggest no way that mathematical order could arise from the "utter chaos" at the BB.

I can't really tell from your word salad, but it looks like maybe you're now suggesting that you think the BB

*wasn't* a state of "utter chaos" after all. Instead, you say that, even at the BB, there was a "self-ordering system as eventually expressed as physics".

So which is it, Write4U? Was the BB a state of

*utter* chaos, or was there a "self-ordering" mechanism in place, even way back then?

Will you drop your assertion that the BB was a state of utter chaos? All I ask for is that you stop contradicting yourself. If you can't be consistent in your claims, no discussion is possible.

In a separate post, you wrote this:

C'mon James, that is not what I meant or said.

I

*quoted* you, from one of your posts. I could have picked any number of them. Even this most recent one has this quote: "Assumption: The BB began in a state of utter chaos."

You don't get to tell lies and claim that this is not what you meant or said. You said it, and I have to assume you meant it. Otherwise, why post stuff you don't believe?

Try to be consistent, and

*don't* tell lies. In particular, don't accuse me of misquoting you when I haven't done that. That's very rude and it's a lie.

Several times I have posted that IMO, the BB (Creation) was a chaotic event, and if cosmology is correct, from this chaos of dynamic fields patterns (particles) began to emerge, interacted and 13.8 billion years later evolved into the Universal order we can observe and quantify today.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

This is a repeat, but let's be clear. You have claimed both that "the universe started as a chaotic condition **without any order**" and that "the BB began in a state of **utter chaos**" (my emphasis).

Here, you claim that "dynamic field patterns (particles) began to emerge". So tell me: how did such things emerge from "utter chaos" that did not possess *any* order?

Or do you now want to drop your claim that there was "utter chaos" at the BB?

You need to do one or the other.

----

Moving on, we come to question #5:
**5. **You have referred to "quasi-intelligent mathematical functions".

Is the function f(x)=x2f(x)=x2f(x)=x^2 a quasi-intelligent function? If not, can you please provide one example of a quasi-intelligent mathematical function?

Are *all* mathematical functions quasi-intelligent? If not, please explain how you go about telling the quasi-intelligent ones from the non-intelligent ones.

You managed a two-line reply to this question. Here it is in full:

No, it is a mathematical function, it's just not a conscious function. It is a quasi-intelligent function.

I could say "semi-intelligent or pseudo-intelligent', but they just don't seem to fit exactly.

In the first line you contradict yourself. Is the function I gave a quasi-intelligent function? You answer "No ..."

Then, in the very next sentence you flip-flop and say "It is a quasi-intelligent function."

So which is it? Is $f(x)=x^2$ a quasi-intelligent function, or isn't it? I'm only asking you to take a consistent position. If you can't decide, then your term "quasi-intelligent" function probably doesn't mean anything.

I note, also, that you did not answer the rest of the questions I asked in #5. Why didn't you answer them?

*Can* you answer them?

---

And that poor showing is all I've had from you by way of a response to the specific questions I asked you (twice!).

In attempting to answer#1, you failed to recognise the divergence between your views and Tegmark's. Either that, or you flip-flop from one view to the other, more or less at random.

In attempting to answer #2, you made the false accusation that I misquoted you. And you utterly failed to answer the question I asked you.

In attempting to answer #5, you gave a self-contradictory answer and ignored three quarters of the question I asked you.

You either ignored or were unable or unwilling to even attempt answers to questions #3, #4, and #6. Either that, or you just couldn't maintain the coherence of thought and concentration required to work through a task with six parts.

Is there any chance at all that you will be able to do any better than this in future?