Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[gmilam]

So exchemist is now actively advocating for closing this thread (forum) lest people learn something from other posters interacting civilly and knowledgeably with W4U. Way to go.!

Your reading comprehension skills need some work.

 

[Write4U]

So say many people wearing aluminium hats. Sometimes the discussion is about what the painting is of, not what brush-strokes were used.

For me it is about understanding the implied truths, not about the symbolic representations.

Yet not everything they do is theoretical science. Both the "implicate order" and Tegmark's MUH are more philosophy than science. Sure, they base themselves on scientific ideas, but they are wholly untestable and matters of faith.

OK , but if they are right then humans should have an empathic connection to the "Wholeness" and perhaps be able to "learn" the TOE.

This is analogous to religion; the Triune, the Trinity. (oops, it's still mathematical)

"Quantum" is a term in physics, not maths.

That's irrelevant. A quantum is a single objective "value".
It requires mathematical functions to process interactive values in a predictable manner.

Quantum

In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. The fundamental notion that a physical property can be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum.

And that's mathematical.

While Tegmark and Bohm believe the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature... so does the whole of science! Yet you single out those two, it seems, to try and support your position on this, while not actually ascribing to their actual positions.

They are the true explorers . If bacteria can communicate, how far down does the ability for self-referential interactive behaviors go?

Let me be clearer: science supports the notion that the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature.

Then why is Tegmark a charlatan? This confirms his focus in the right direction. I cited him and I only defend unwarranted attacks on his character. IMO, his hypothesis makes perfect objective sense. I believe that all patterns in nature are mathematical objects, physical or abstract.

It's as simple as that. It is the whole focus of science. But if you want to go beyond the remit of science, beyond what can be actually tested, then you're into the realms of philosophy and faith. And even then, you don't need to confuse your position with the likes of Tegmark and Bohm. You seem to do so solely because they are interesting ideas, but your referencing them and those ideas just confuses what you're trying to actually say.

Ok, I see them as pioneers who have knowledge of the terrain.

The common denominator is that of science, and science assumes that the physical universe obeys laws that are mathematical. It's as simple as that.

HEAR, HEAR!!!
Not all science assumes that the physical universe obeys (is guided by) laws that are mathematical (in essence).
And Creationists certainly do not believe in a quasi-intelligent logical principle that regulates physical events.

So you don't actually know what "Quantum Creationism" is? Have you even defined it, or accepted a definition of it, before wandering off into discussions of what you see as underlying everything?

Do not ignore the second part of the OP. There is the question.
"Quantum Creationism- Is it Science or is it Religion." (?)

I propose that it is neither extreme perspective , but lies in the middle on the probability scale.

And here I always cite Robert Hazen. His studies in mineralogy and the range of physical patterns that can be created logically (mathematically).

continued......

 

[Write4U]

Your reading comprehension skills need some work.

LOL.

 

[Write4U]

"Stoic process"? Do you mean stochastic process? If not, I'm not sure what you mean by the term you use.

A little poetic liberty comparing the self-referential nature of the Universe with the properties described in Stoicism. I meant "stoical" properties. but should have used "emotionally indifferent", unlike the concepts described by Intelligent Design and Motive in religions ("God saw it was Good")

A source of wonder
By SABINE HOSSENFELDER, August 25, 2022 7:00 AM EDT
Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany, and has published more than eighty research articles about the foundations of physics, including quantum gravity, physics beyond the standard model, dark matter, and quantum foundations. She has written about physics for a broad audience for fifteen years. Her first book, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, appeared in 2018.

I’ve made a name, for better or worse, by debunking nonsense physics headlines. That’s anything from the alleged observation of negative mass (no such thing) to messaging faster-than-light with the quantum internet (you can’t) to contact with parallel universes (I assure you we haven’t had any).

But as more of my colleagues are out there with me on social media debunking fake science news, I have found that we paint a one-sided picture. Science has more to say than “nope, you can’t”. It also opens our mind to new possibilities, new sources of wonder, and new ways to make sense of our own existence.

https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/

But basically you're saying that the question is whether "God did it", or was it just a part of an underlying "dumb" process? Gee. Sure, let's bring in Tegmark and Bohm for that.

Why not them? They have been discussing this for many years.

Is this what you think Quantum Creationism is about? Because that really just sounds like Creationism.

Yes a mathematically guided evolutionary process.

It's quite simple, really: from the point of the Big Bang onward, the evidence is of a physical universe that follows laws, those laws being mathematical in nature. As to what happened "before" the BB (if the term "before" even has meaning when referencing the BB), or why the BB occurred... guess what: we don't know, and we can't know.

I agree.

This all depends on how you define mathematics, and the philosophy you assume / adhere to with regard it. Mathematical realism, formalism, fictionalism, for example. Take your pick.

So time itself emerged?

You talk about things travelling, or expanding, while there is no "time"? Interesting. Is this notion supported by anything? I mean, cosmology certainly doesn't agree with it, as they are quite comfortable using time during the inflationary epoch. Further, it is precisely because of maths also existing during that time, or so they assume, that they can model that early universe, such that we arrive at ideas like the inflationary epoch at all. So, no, I think you need to revise your thoughts here, or at least support them with something meaningful. Science does not support you.

Sure. Now just support that, please.

There are certainly different philosophies of maths, the most common being mathematical realism, where maths isn't a human construct but something we discover. Our symbols and thinking about it are human constructs, but the underlying nature is not.

As for the "the map is not the territory", this has very much been in response to Tegmark's claim that everything is maths. Not just that everything follows mathematical laws, but everything is maths, and only maths. So please don't take that criticism as a dismissal of mathematics as irrelevant.

That doesn't answer my question: when was this switch from a universe without mathematics to one in which it is, seemingly, inherent?

Sure - for things to work physically there needs to be the physical. But maths requires nothing to work. It is abstract. All it requires is itself, its axioms etc. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Law and the application of that law. As far as science is aware, and assumes, the laws existed from the getgo, in as much as they are inherent properties. The earliest universe abided by these laws. But being abstract (properties are abstract objects) they only require physical matter for the behaviour they describe to manifest.
You are equivocating on the term chaos/chaotic. While chaos can also mean disordered, or random, you previously specifically referenced chaos theory. Chaos theory is all about deterministic processes, not stochastic ones.

A point which noone has disputed, and yet you've taken over... how many pages?... to say not very much at all that is seemingly relevant to the thread.
So let me be kind: what do you think Quantum Creationism refers to?

In the context of the OP or scientifically, or religiously?
Has anyone told us what Quantum Creationism refers to?

As a minimalist going turtles all the way down, I have been addressing in opposition to the concept of eternal existence implicit in the proposition that the Universe has always existed in some prior form instead of emerging out of a singular nothing.

There must have been a beginning, no?

As for Universal mathematics; they emerged as a result of differential equations existing between quanta, which became necessary in the evolutionary process as the fledgeling Universe expanded and particles started to self-form and evolve into matter and complex systems.

I have given you my model and why that generally agrees with and rests on common denominators found in the scientific disciplines of Penrose, Tegmark, Bohm, Robert Hazen, some of the scientists specializing in the mathematical concepts of the Universe.

 

[exchemist]

Your reading comprehension skills need some work.

Quite.

If anything, I'm advocating a return to the thread topic, a suppression of random shit "from off of ve internet", and a new approach towards Write4U, as a person with impaired mental capacity, whom we should only engage in full awareness of that.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Don't (b/w, "Just Sayin'")

If anything, I'm advocating a return to the thread topic, a suppression of random shit "from off of ve internet", and a new approach towards Write4U, as a person with impaired mental capacity, whom we should only engage in full awareness of that.

Two points, here:

• Are we really going to do the bit about mental capacity? Trust me, reading comprehension is an interesting question, but I already know nobody really wants that stuff on the table for realsies, but just so they can have after someone in particular.

• Inasmuch as we might "return to the thread topic", I would simply remind that it is "Quantum Creationism", so I need to see its formal boundaries before I can understand if this or that quantum-derived whatnot is relevant to the scientific boundaries of creationism.​

 

[exchemist]

Mod Hat — Don't (b/w, "Just Sayin'")



Two points, here:

• Are we really going to do the bit about mental capcity? Trust me, reading comprehension is an interesting question, but I already know nobody really wants that stuff on the table for realsies, but just so they can have after someone in particular.

• Inasmuch as we might "return to the thread topic", I would simply remind that it is "Quantum Creationism", so I need to see its formal boundaries before I can understand if this or that quantum-derived whatnot is relevant to the scientific boundaries of creationism.​

Yes I am serious about that. If you look at the posts Write4U was making 6 or 7 years ago, they were quite different, a lot more coherent and without the random irrelevant internet inclusions. Something has got a lot worse.

 

[Tiassa]

I'll Do This Part in Black Ink

Yes I am serious about that. If you look at the posts Write4U was making 6 or 7 years ago, they were quite different, a lot more coherent and without the random irrelevant internet inclusions. Something has got a lot worse.

It's true that a few years ago, maybe even several, I noted to a colleague that it sometimes felt like I was beating up on the noncompetent.

It's also true that I've been criticized for remembering six or seven years ago, but, no, I'm not going to give you shit for that. I'm actually encouraged to know that people are at least trying to share a common experience; it's not always clear that they are.

And, frankly, yes, a lot was different six or seven years ago. And perhaps people are changing that much, but there is also a winnowing of our range, over time, as people put less and less effort into their participation. I've described it, before, as what we have cultivated over time. It's not complicated insofar as it describes circumstances favorable to certain behavior and unfavorable to other. And we see the results; slothful cynicism, perpetual complaint, &c.

I have plenty of questions about people's reading comprehension, and, yes, I have had reason, before, to wonder about this or that person's state of mind, but at the same time, for all the stuff that goes on in science, posting that sort of news and discussion is not as important as fighting the proverbial good fight. And, sure, whatever, I kind of get it. Some people find ufology and cosmological crackpottery just that dangerous. While it's true, I have other priorities, that shouldn't be taken to diminish the goodness of making certain stands.

Still, we're talking about quantum creationism. Let me be clear: "Quantum"-asserting crackpottery pertaining to nature of existence is not inherently irrelevant to "quantum"-asserting crackpottery pertaining to the origin of existence.

Or, perhaps: Are we going to legitimize "quantum creationism" in order to exclude crackpottery?

Because it's creationism.

What are the boundaries of quantum creationism? I'm just saying, a "quantum creationism" thread that ran in the Religion subforum and is now moved to Pseudoscience is a virtual garden for W4U's stuff. I get that people are sick of it, but are we really going to legitimize quantum creationism in order to validate the complaint so that we might exclude this particular crackpottery? Of all the complaints, people are on about irrelevance? It's quantum creationism, how would they know?

And the latest complaint included some frustration featuring a new adjective and describing factions in order to worry that the faction fighting the good fight is losing, and this can make people cynical. And in general, it's true I am sympathetic to the notion. However, the occasion absolutely reminds of the need to reiterate that the "good fight" is supposed to be the "good" fight. We had a recent, not-unrelated occasion in which the good fight saw fit to meet crackpottery with crackpottery, so, no, that wasn't really the good fight, pseudoneologisms aside.

Also, it's true that six or seven years ago, the question of the good fight was faltering in another context, already suffering from our forfeiture. The reason I talk about diverse issues and long history in these questions is because what people complain about today is an ongoing effect years in the making. When we perpetually disincentivize better discourse, fewer people try, and if we complain that anyone would try, then even fewer. And, sure, something goes here about a winnowing of habits and ranges of discussion.

Toward mental capacity, I can only reiterate, nobody really wants that on the table for real; it gets vicious and dangerous real quick. To wit, inasmuch as I might ever have reason to wonder about someone's mental capacity, it's hard to figure what to do about that. Consider the potential for a cluster of clueless having an internet argument accusing each other of noncompetency. Perhaps it will even be hilarious, at least right up to the moment it isn't.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just a bit of a nitpick:

It's also true that I've been criticized for remembering six or seven years ago, but, no, I'm not going to give you shit for that

There's a world of difference between:
- behavior X started six or seven years ago, affects all of us, and is ongoing to this day
and
- incident X happened six or seven years ago and I personally have never been able to let it go.

 

[Write4U]

Lol, ....Write4U, our beloved village idiot.....

 

[DaveC426913]

Lol, ....Write4U, our beloved village idiot.....

Not quite. "Village idiots" are unable to function.
You are able to function, but choose not to.
You choose to behave like a village idiot.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Yes, you are causal to the ball dropping from your hand. The ball drops to the floor guided by the mathematics of falling bodies.
Yes, you were the independent causality for the ball dropping to the floor. You physically opened your hand to allow the ball to drop. Any mathematical activity in your brain that was causal to your decision to drop the ball is unrelated to the ball actually dropping.

You said "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". Opening my hand to drop the ball is a physical interaction, isn't it?

You suggest that "mathematical activity in [my] brain ... was causal to [my] decision to drop the ball". That sounds like you're saying that mathematics is causal to physical interactions after all. Is "mathematical activity in my brain" a physical interaction, or not?

Do you agree that physical interactions in my brain caused my hand to open and drop the ball?

You say that mathematics caused my brain to command my hand to drop the ball? How did it do that, exactly? At what point did the mathematics get a handle on my physical neurons, and then my physical hand, and then the physical ball?

It is the mathematics of the gravitational field that guides the ball to drop instead of float away.

What does "guides" mean, in this context? What is the mathematics doing when it is "guiding" something physical? And how does it do it?

You are deliberately misinterpreting my words. IMO, I am not saying anything that is controversial, to which my quoted links will testify, if you take them in context.

I take issue with your claim that mathematics "guides" the physical world. You have, so far, demonstrated no mechanism for any "guiding". Moreover, the idea seems implausible on its face. How could a conceptual thing possibly affect the physical world in any way? I have asked you this question many times. You never answer it. Why not?

No, I see mathematics as a property of Universal Logic, you know what religious people call (intentional) God.
Would you ask a religious person if it is God that makes the ball drop?

The question I asked you was the same one I just repeated here, because you didn't answer it, again: "what do you mean when you say that mathematics "guides" physical interactions?"

When I asked you "what do you mean...?", is "No, ..." an answer to that question? It is not. You're supposed to tell me what you mean, when I ask you what you mean.

Now you're telling me that you think mathematics is equiavlent to "what religious people call (intentional) God". Mathematics is your god? Have I got that right? So mathematics guides physical things by mathematical god magic?

And yes, I would ask a religious person if it is God that makes a ball drop, if they claimed that God "guides" the dropping of a ball. I would ask them the same question I asked you: how does it work? What's the mechanism for the God reaching into the physical world to move the ball?

Yes, without the mathematical structure of gravitational fields the ball may not fall at all.

You have not demonstrated any need for the "mathematical structure", so far. You're just assserting that it is necessary. Can you do any better than that?

A Comprehensive Guide to the Physics of Running on the Moon
Humans are going to live on the moon eventually. So how are we going to move around there?

Relevance: zero.

Why can't you focus on what we're discussing?

It's almost random what you choose to respond to, and then when you do respond you're constantly going off on irrelevant tangents.

What does gravity have to do with weight?

Earth's gravitational pull is what keeps the Moon in orbit around our planet. Voyager 1 snapped this picture of Earth and the Moon from a distance of 7.25 million miles. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

How do scientists use gravitational pull as a scale?

Your weight is different on other planets due to gravity. However, your mass is the same everywhere!

What is the mass of Earth?
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/planets-weight/en/

Looks like the mathematics on the moon are a little different, due to the lower mass of the moon

All this. Relevance: zero. Why, Write4U?

I believe it is gravity that is the causal force, it the mathematics involved that guide the rate of fall.

Why not toss out the maths and just let gravity guide the rate of fall as well? What is the maths doing, and how is it doing it?

If there is no difference then why do wwe have 2 different terms describing the same thing?

Recall that it was you who tried to distinguish between "causing" and "guiding", not me. If there's no difference, why do you have 2 different terms for the same thing?

It is the spacetime structure itself that mathematically permits or restricts certain actions from taking place.

If you removed the word "mathematically" from that sentence, would anything important be lost?

Right or wrong, I have never refused to answer any question. The problem lies in the abstract nature of the subject.

Is the dropping of a tennis ball too abstract for you?

I am not alone in this discussion. The greatest minds with deep knowledge of physics have struggled with this subject. Are you going to call all these people stupid and ignorant, or is it just because I don't have peer reviewed papers?

None of the greatest minds with deep knowledge of physics seem to share your views, as far as I am aware. Does that concern you at all?

Yes, and once we have quantum computing we can make measurements down to Planck scale.

Quantum computing has nothing to do with making measurements down to the Planck scale.

This map to physics analogy is becoming moot. We can now actually copy physical processes exactly as they occur in reality.

You might as well say we don't need to know any physics; we can just watch how physical systems behave and then ... watch some more physical systems and then ... er... something.

Does your mathematics also become moot? It would seem so.

This is not the result of reading a map to gain a "composite" representation, but of following natural processes based on the mathematical values involved.

What are you talking about? We can't see any "mathematical values" in "natural processes", let alone follow them.

If you can speak the language, you can understand the process.

Language implies a map of something. Language is used to describe things.

You claim I use the wrong terms and therefore you cannot understand a word I am saying on the subject. IOW, if I used the right language it all would make sense?

No. The core issue is that your nonsense is, a lot of the time, not even internally consistent. It is full of half-arsed claims and contradictions and things that make no sense. You won't solve your problems just by inventing new Write4U terms for things.

It's not true that I cannot understand a word you're saying. If you were posting in Swedish (a language I don't know), then I would probably understand very few words. Conversation would be impossible. But you're conversing in a version of English, a language with which I have some competency. In English, words have widely-accepted meanings. But often, in the current discussion, we have found that the meanings you attempt to assign to English terms are nothing like the meanings that scientists, say, assign to the same terms. Moreover, when such inconsistencies are pointed out to you, you typically refuse to accept correction. More importantly, when asked to explain how you would define the word, you are often unable to give a precise definition. What this tells us is that, a lot of the time, you are content to use words without actually having any specific meaning in mind. Rather, you seem to think that the meanings you assign to words can randomly float around, to mean whatever you need them to mean at any given time.

Since many of your ideas are incoherent, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that your attempts to describe your ideas are similarly incoherent.

If you wanted to make sense, you would make some effort to concentrate on one thing at a time. You'd attempt to understand one thing before flitting to the next. You'd make some attempt to learn science and to learn how scientists define the terms you want to use. You would be willing to learn from people who have already put in that sort of effort to learn. But you don't do any other these things. So, I have to conclude that making sense is not something that is very important to you.

My claim is that mathematics is the abstract language of the universe.

That doesn't actually mean anything. It's a sort of deepity. At best, it's an analogy, and as such you need to recognise that when you use it you're not really talking about the universe, but about a map of the universe. But this is a simple idea that you seem to be utterly unable (or unwilling) to grasp.

 

[James R]

I ran across an excellent site (pdf).
Causality and causation: What we learn from mathematical dynamic systems theory Niko Sauer Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa

Please tell me what you find to be "excellent" about this article from which you have quoted, Write4U.

What did you learn from the article? Can you give a brief summary in your own words?

 

[James R]

Yes, underlying all my posts is the question if focusing on "common denominators" in seemingly unrelated topics might yield some observations and suggestions. It is all connected somehow.

There's a blue flower! There's a blue car! There's the blue sky!

Maybe flowers are the cause of cars. Maybe the underlying principle of the cosmos is "blue" - the secret glue that links everything together.

I have a blue bible! That can't be a coincidence. Everything has to be connected. Excuse me, I'm off to swim in my blue swimming pool.

As somebody said about Freud (or was it Freud himself who said it?), sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Have you ever considered that possibility?

Seems to me that theoretical scientists do only what has real bearing on the issue. Both Tegmark and Bohm are theoretical scientists. The term physics doesn't really apply at this level at all. Quantum creation happens at quantum, no?

Your word salad bowl is really overflowing in this post, Write4U. Did you just spam all of this out of your brain, more or less at random, this time around?

"Quantum" is a mathematical term ...

A "quantum" is just a fixed amount of something. I guess you could say it's mathematical, if you are concerned with amounts of things. As an adjective, on the other hand, "quantum" tends to be a physics term, not a mathematical one.

I am not a Bohmian or a tegmarkian or Xian. I see common denominators in their hypotheses. That means they are connected, somehow.

Jesus had blue eyes. Bohm had a blue cat. Common demominators, you see!

To me, the message contained in the term "Quantum Creation" is not a narrowly defined subject. Seems to me it opens up every nook and cranny of Universal properties and how they interact and if that is guided by an Intelligent Designer or by a quasi-Intelligent mathematical (logical) property of spacetime itself.

Are you ever going to answer my question about what "quasi-intelligent" means? Or are you going to just going to keep skipping over that, as you skip over so many other questions?

I mean, if you're going to keep using a word, do you think it is unfair for your readers to ask what you mean by it? Is it too much to expect you to be able to actually explain what you mean by things?

Generic mathematically measurable processes, that can be imitated and replicated by humans in laboratories, need 'raw" materials. Without matter, mathematics are absent altogether but are the Implicate, the abstraction of mathematical functions or self-referential ordering logic, until invoked by dynamic action.

Complete word salad. Virtually meaningless.

But even in a self-referential system in a state of chaos expanding at FTL during the "inflationary epoch", there would be no time for and patterned expression of anything until the plasma began to cool and things "slowed down" to the value of "c" and time emerged as a separate but related dimension of an evolving geometry.

Isn't the cooling down itself a "patterned expression"?

You're not making any sort of sense. Are you aware of this, at all? Does it bother you?

Time does not exist until it is necessary for a chronology and is "invoked" by the creation of that chronology of the durable existence of a patterned physical object.

Just pure, unadulterated drivel.

Who do you think you're fooling with this rubbish, Write4U? This is an insult to the intelligence of your readers.

Are you just posting to make a random noise? Why this?

For mathematics to work it requires interactive behaviors of physical values (things). But equations work both ways.

Which ways? You haven't mentioned two ways.

For physical interactive behaviors to work, they require the guiding behavior of some form of generic (logical) mathematical principles.

Why do they require that? How do the mathematical principles affect the physical objects? What's the mechanism?

Mathematics are not causal to dynamic forces, they are the naturally regulating potentials in accordance with logical principles (and that's another story).

Yes. I have noted the absence of any logical principles in your post so far. Will you get to those, eventually?

Exactly! Quantum fields exhibit chaotically complex dynamics, but "over time" the mathematics relevant to the interacting values create regular patterns, i.e universally occurring patterns formed by and self-referentially ordered by the applicable mathematical regulations. Indeterminism mathematically self-ordering into deterministic forms and patterns

More word salad. Nothing like anything Sarkus wrote. The "exactly!" implies an agreement between you and Sarkus that is entirely illusory.

Sorry if I did not make this clearer.
I am simply saying that the Inflationary Epoch was a non-mathematical indeterministic event. It occurred at FTL for a moment and then took another several billions of years to cool down enough for "particles" to start forming and mathematics becoming part of the evolutionary equation in the formation of patterns, matter, and physical systems.

So now you're saying that the universe, which is 13.8 billion years old, lacked any mathematics for the first several billion years of its existence. And then what happened? Why did mathematics suddenly pop into existence after several billion years of cooling down? How did that happen?

Let's pause briefly on this roller coaster to look around and notice that none - not a single one - of Write4U's wild claims about how the universe evolved is supported by a shred of evidence or physical or mathematical argument. It's surprising, given the supposedly central role that Write4U tells us that mathematics plays in his philosophy. We see no maths of "chaos theory" in his posts. No "chaotic universal quantum dynamics". No mathematics of "universal potentials". No mathematics of an "FTL inflationary epoch". No maths at all, anywhere.

Oh wait, I'm wrong. He did cut and paste the Fibonacci sequence from wikipedia, once.

 

[Write4U]

You said "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". Opening my hand to drop the ball is a physical interaction, isn't it?

Mathematics is not causal to interaction. It does not have physical properties. It regulates how the physical interaction is processed.

What does "guides" mean, in this context? What is the mathematics doing when it is "guiding" something physical? And how does it do it?

Generic mathematics doesn't do anything at all. It is the unwritten rules that guide the dynamic exchange of physical causal "values". This is why we have a Table of elements, the intrinsic mathematical properties of atoms, all neatly arranged in accordance with the inherent values of the composite parts. Is that good enough?

 

[Write4U]

Oh wait, I'm wrong. He did cut and paste the Fibonacci sequence from wikipedia, once.

And that simple sentence alone contains a mathematical equation, not because of my posting the Fibonacci sequence, but your use of the mathematical term "once", a mathematical term!

I need not do the maths to know that it is all mathematical in essence. Instead of asking me for something mathematical, allow me to ask you for something non-mathematical. Can you come up with a physical interaction that does not have a mathematical aspect at all?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Do you think of Math during sex?

 

[Write4U]

What's the mechanism for the God reaching into the physical world to move the ball?

That is the wrong question. It should be "What are the geometric of spacetime that guides the ball physically dropping at a precise and measurable mathematical trajectory and rate of "fall". Oops, a mathematical term.

And unless you are a Teleporter, your brain can only decide if there is sufficient "cause" to make you want to drop the ball or throw it.

So now you're saying that the universe, which is 13.8 billion years old, lacked any mathematics for the first several billion years of its existence. And then what happened? Why did mathematics suddenly pop into existence after several billion years of cooling down? How did that happen?

It didn't. You are misreading my posts.
I specifically said that during the "inflationary epoch" the universe was too chaotic to have any mathematical regularities to start but which became expressed during the cooling (change in values) and the more gradually controlled "unfolding" of the spacetime fabric, a geometric object with mathematical properties slowly emerging with the self-formation of elements as spacetime expanded and began to0 form repetitive (mathematical) patterns.

THE INFLATION THEORY

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

Inflation was both rapid, and strong. It increased the linear size of the universe by more than 60 "e-folds", or a factor of ~10^26 in only a small fraction of a second! Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory since it explains the above puzzles so well, while retaining the basic paradigm of a homogeneous expanding universe.

Moreover, Inflation Theory links important ideas in modern physics, such as symmetry breaking and phase transitions, to cosmology.

What is the Inflation Theory?

The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.

As a bonus, Inflation also explains the origin of structure in the universe. Prior to inflation, the portion of the universe we can observe today was microscopic, and quantum fluctuation in the density of matter on these microscopic scales expanded to astronomical scales during Inflation. Over the next several hundred million years, the higher density regions condensed into stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html#

 

[Write4U]

Do you think of Math during sex?

It depends on how much she charges..... I want to get my money's worth! ....

 

[Write4U]

A "quantum" is just a fixed amount of something. I guess you could say it's mathematical, if you are concerned with amounts of things. As an adjective, on the other hand, "quantum" tends to be a physics term, not a mathematical one.

Mathematics is not just about amounts.
Measure (mathematics)

In mathematics, the concept of a measure is a generalization and formalization of geometrical measures (length, area, volume) and other common notions, such as magnitude, mass, and probability of events.

These seemingly distinct concepts have many similarities and can often be treated together in a single mathematical context.

Measures are foundational in probability theory, integration theory, and can be generalized to assume negative values, as with electrical charge. Far-reaching generalizations (such as spectral measures and projection-valued measures) of measure are widely used in quantum physics and physics in general.

The intuition behind this concept dates back to ancient Greece, when Archimedes tried to calculate the area of a circle. But it was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that measure theory became a branch of mathematics. The foundations of modern measure theory were laid in the works of Émile Borel, Henri Lebesgue, Nikolai Luzin, Johann Radon, Constantin Carathéodory, and Maurice Fréchet, among others.

more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)

Ontology of Mathematics
Edited by Rafal Urbaniak (Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego)
Assistant editors: Pawel Pawlowski, Sam Roberts

About this topic
SummaryOntology of mathematics is concerned with the existence and nature of objects that mathematics is about. An important phenomenon in the field is the need of balancing between epistemological and ontological challenges. For instance, prima facie, the ontologically simplest option is to postulate the existence of abstract mathematical objects (like numbers or sets) to which mathematical terms refer.

Yet, explaining how we, mundane beings, can have knowledge of such aspatial and atemporal objects, turns out to be quite difficult. The ontologically parsimonious alternative is to deny the existence of such objects. But then, one has to explain what it is that makes mathematical theories true (or at least, correct) and how we can come to know mathematical facts. Various positions arise from various ways of addressing questions of these two sorts.

https://philpapers.org/browse/ontology-of-mathematics