Your reading comprehension skills need some work.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.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.!
For me it is about understanding the implied truths, not about the symbolic representations.So say many people wearing aluminium hats. Sometimes the discussion is about what the painting is of, not what brush-strokes were used.
OK , but if they are right then humans should have an empathic connection to the "Wholeness" and perhaps be able to "learn" the TOE.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.
That's irrelevant. A quantum is a single objective "value"."Quantum" is a term in physics, not maths.
And that's mathematical.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.
They are the true explorers . If bacteria can communicate, how far down does the ability for self-referential interactive behaviors go?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.
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.Let me be clearer: science supports the notion that the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature.
Ok, I see them as pioneers who have knowledge of the terrain.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.
HEAR, HEAR!!!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.
Do not ignore the second part of the OP. There is the question.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?
LOL.Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
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")"Stoic process"? Do you mean stochastic process? If not, I'm not sure what you mean by the term you use.
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).
https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/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.
Why not them? They have been discussing this for many years.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.
Yes a mathematically guided evolutionary process.Is this what you think Quantum Creationism is about? Because that really just sounds like Creationism.
I agree.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.
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.
In the context of the OP or scientifically, or religiously?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?
Quite.Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
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.
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.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.
There's a world of difference between: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
Not quite. "Village idiots" are unable to function.Lol, ....Write4U, our beloved village idiot.....
You said "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". Opening my hand to drop the ball is a physical interaction, isn't it?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.
What does "guides" mean, in this context? What is the mathematics doing when it is "guiding" something physical? And how does it do it?It is the mathematics of the gravitational field that guides the ball to drop instead of float away.
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?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.
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?"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?
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?Yes, without the mathematical structure of gravitational fields the ball may not fall at all.
Relevance: zero.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?
All this. Relevance: zero. Why, Write4U?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
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?I believe it is gravity that is the causal force, it the mathematics involved that guide the rate of fall.
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?If there is no difference then why do wwe have 2 different terms describing the same thing?
If you removed the word "mathematically" from that sentence, would anything important be lost?It is the spacetime structure itself that mathematically permits or restricts certain actions from taking place.
Is the dropping of a tennis ball too abstract for you?Right or wrong, I have never refused to answer any question. The problem lies in the abstract nature of the subject.
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?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?
Quantum computing has nothing to do with making measurements down to the Planck scale.Yes, and once we have quantum computing we can make measurements down to Planck scale.
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.This map to physics analogy is becoming moot. We can now actually copy physical processes exactly as they occur in reality.
What are you talking about? We can't see any "mathematical values" in "natural processes", let alone follow them.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.
Language implies a map of something. Language is used to describe things.If you can speak the language, you can understand the process.
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.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?
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.My claim is that mathematics is the abstract language of the universe.
Please tell me what you find to be "excellent" about this article from which you have quoted, Write4U.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
There's a blue flower! There's a blue car! There's the blue sky!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.
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?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?
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."Quantum" is a mathematical term ...
Jesus had blue eyes. Bohm had a blue cat. Common demominators, you see!I am not a Bohmian or a tegmarkian or Xian. I see common denominators in their hypotheses. That means they are connected, somehow.
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?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.
Complete word salad. Virtually meaningless.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.
Isn't the cooling down itself a "patterned expression"?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.
Just pure, unadulterated drivel.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.
Which ways? You haven't mentioned two ways.For mathematics to work it requires interactive behaviors of physical values (things). But equations work both ways.
Why do they require that? How do the mathematical principles affect the physical objects? What's the mechanism?For physical interactive behaviors to work, they require the guiding behavior of some form of generic (logical) mathematical principles.
Yes. I have noted the absence of any logical principles in your post so far. Will you get to those, eventually?Mathematics are not causal to dynamic forces, they are the naturally regulating potentials in accordance with logical principles (and that's another story).
More word salad. Nothing like anything Sarkus wrote. The "exactly!" implies an agreement between you and Sarkus that is entirely illusory.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
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?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.
Mathematics is not causal to interaction. It does not have physical properties. It regulates how the physical interaction is processed.You said "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". Opening my hand to drop the ball is a physical interaction, isn't 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?What does "guides" mean, in this context? What is the mathematics doing when it is "guiding" something physical? And how does it do it?
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!Oh wait, I'm wrong. He did cut and paste the Fibonacci sequence from wikipedia, once.
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.What's the mechanism for the God reaching into the physical world to move the ball?
It didn't. You are misreading my posts.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?
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.
What is the Inflation Theory?Moreover, Inflation Theory links important ideas in modern physics, such as symmetry breaking and phase transitions, to cosmology.
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.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html#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.
It depends on how much she charges..... I want to get my money's worth! ....Do you think of Math during sex?
Mathematics is not just about amounts.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.
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.
more..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)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.
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.
https://philpapers.org/browse/ontology-of-mathematicsYet, 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.