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

[Write4U]

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?

How many times do I need to explain this? "Quasi-intelligent" is a proper term for the description of a non-living but mathematical aspect of the Universe. i.e. This is the alternative solution to an age-old question.
"IS THERE A GOD (an Intelligent Creator)?
No, but "THERE IS A MATHEMATICAL (a quasi-Intelligent self-referential dynamically creative universe)

in·tel·li·gent, adjective

1. having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
   capable of thought higher-order
   
   Opposite: stupid

1. nonrational
   
   
   

   • (of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
     
     Similar: robotic, automatic, self-regulating, capable of learning, smart
   • (of a computer terminal) incorporating a microprocessor and having its own processing capability.

   Oxford languages.

 

[Write4U]

James R said: ↑
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?

I reread this and I admit I did not make myself very clear. Allow me to clarify the "billion".

A Cooling, Expanding Universe

For a brief moment after the Big Bang, the immense heat created conditions unlike any conditions astrophysicists see in the universe today. While planets and stars today are composed of atoms of elements like hydrogen and silicon, scientists believe the universe back then was too hot for anything other than the most fundamental particles -- such as quarks and photons.

But as the universe quickly expanded, the energy of the Big Bang became more and more "diluted" in space, causing the universe to cool. Popping open a beer bottle results in a roughly similar cooling, expanding effect: gas, once confined in the bottle, spreads into the air, and the temperature of the beer drops.

Rapid cooling allowed for matter as we know it to form in the universe, although physicists are still trying to figure out exactly how this happened. About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed, and within a few minutes these particles stuck together to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium. Hundreds of thousands of years later, electrons stuck to the nuclei to make complete atoms.

About a billion years after the Big Bang, gravity caused these atoms to gather in huge clouds of gas, forming collections of stars known as galaxies. Gravity is the force that pulls any objects with mass towards one another -- the same force, for example, that causes a ball thrown in the air to fall to the earth.

Where do planets like earth come from? Over billions of years, stars "cook" hydrogen and helium atoms in their hot cores to make heavier elements like carbon and oxygen. Large stars explode over time, blasting these elements into space. This matter then condenses into the stars, planets, and satellites that make up solar systems like our own.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/origins/big-bang#

Note that gravity is causal to many mathematical laws and universal constants. When I cited the "billion years" I should have clarified about the important role gravitational geometrics play in the universal generic mathematics of spacetime.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: 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.

James R said: Just pure, unadulterated drivel.

And your counter-argument is? I promise I won't call it drivel.
Does time exist independent of space? If yes, can you prove it?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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

How can a concept regulate a physical system? What is the mechanism?

How many times can you fail to address this question, while pretending to answer it?

Generic mathematics doesn't do anything at all.

"Generic mathematics" is just something you made up on the spot.

It is the unwritten rules that guide the dynamic exchange of physical causal "values".

You just made that up, too.

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?

It's never good enough to just make shit up and then pretend that just by saying it you have justified it.

The reason we have a Periodic table is because some human beings invented one. Nature has no period table.

You keep talking about "intrinsic mathematical properties". Name one. Show me where the maths is in a physical object.

I need not do the maths to know that it is all mathematical in essence.

When are you going to tell us how you know this? So far, there are more than 500 posts to this thread, and you have given no justification for your position. Nor have you answered objections to it.

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?

Tell me what it would mean for a physical interaction to have a "mathematical aspect", first. What are you asking?

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 is the mechanism for a geometry to guide a physical object?

I have asked you many times how a conceptual thing can affect a physical thing. Will you ever attempt to answer the question you have been asked over and over?

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.

???

It didn't. You are misreading my posts.

No. I'm reading what you write, and assuming that the words you are using have their normal English definitions, unless you tell me otherwise. Having said that, a lot of the time what you write doesn't make grammatical sense, which makes it meaningless. And a lot of the time, even when it does make grammatical sense, it makes no sense as a coherent thought. You waste a lot of time just stringing random sciency-sounding words together in sentences, without ever bothering to find out what they mean, or whether they mean anything at all when you put them in that particular order.

It is up to you to express yourself clearly. You regularly fail at that.

Now, you have told me that English is not your first language. Full credit to you for being at the level you are in a second language. But don't you think it would make sense for you to ask questions about the correct meanings of English words that you're unsure about, and to try to learn correct grammar, if you're not getting your message across clearly? But you won't accept any correction of your errors.

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)...

If the universe was too chaotic to have any regularities, then you have a big problem. How did the regularities we see today come out of all that irregularity and "chaos"? Even "cooling" is a "regularity". You're assuming that cooling somehow existed, despite the otherwise complete chaos. Why did cooling exist, then? Did temperature exist? Was temperature a "regularity" that existed at the start of the universe? If not, how can you talk about the universe "cooling"?

... 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.

Tell me how a spacetime fabric can "unfold".

And where can I see these repetitive mathematical patterns you say began to form. And why did they begin to form?

THE INFLATION THEORY

What is the Inflation Theory?

Relevance to your arguments: zero.

Mathematics is not just about amounts.
Measure (mathematics)

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

Relevance: zero.

Ontology of Mathematics
Edited by Rafal Urbaniak (Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego)
Assista1nt editors: Pawel Pawlowski, Sam Roberts

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

Relevance: a lot!!!!!!!! [Something about broken clocks being right twice a day goes here.]

Did you bother reading this article, or did you just cut and paste without attempting to understand, as usual?

Can we discuss the implications of this article? Does anything in the article accurately describe your position, do you think? Which part(s)?

Is this article science or philosophy? Do you know?

I reread this and I admit I did not make myself very clear. Allow me to clarify the "billion".

A Cooling, Expanding Universe

Where is your clarification?

You have just cut and pasted another random article. You said you were going to clarify your words/ideas. When are you going to do that?

Note that gravity is causal to many mathematical laws and universal constants.

You're just repeating your faulty claim, without adding anything new, any explanation, or anything useful.

Hey, wait...!

This is not a repeat of the same faulty claim. It is, in fact, a new faulty claim. It's probably just an accident though.

Recall that your initial claim was that mathematics is all there is. Then, you dropped that claim for some reason (which you didn't tell us) and you have been arguing that mathematics doesn't cause physical stuff, but it somehow guides physical stuff, although you don't have any arguments in support of that position.

But now, you're doing a full 180 degree turn, because now you're claiming that gravity - a physical force or effect - is "causal to many mathematical laws and universal constants". That is, you're now claiming that a physical effect somehow causes mathematics.

To summarise, during this thread you have flip-flopped through the following positions:

1. Mathematics is all there is. Physical objects are really just maths.
2. Physical objects and maths both exist. Nobody knows what causes anything physical, but mathematics guides physical processes (e.g. determines how objects move, but somehow without actually causing them to move).
3. Physical objects and maths both exist. But it is a physical force - gravity - that somehow causes mathematical laws and universal constants.

Also, the implications of (3) are that physics causes maths, which "guides" the physics that caused it. Which is more or less a circular argument.

You really ought to decide what position you actually want to root for, if that's what you want to do, Write4U. Flip-flopping around like a wet fish doesn't inspire confidence in your readers.

When I cited the "billion years" I should have clarified about the important role gravitational geometrics play in the universal generic mathematics of spacetime.

Are you going to do that, then? When are you going to do that? Will that be in your next post?

 

[James R]

How many times do I need to explain this? "Quasi-intelligent" is a proper term for the description of a non-living but mathematical aspect of the Universe.

You pulled out your dictionary to look up the meaning of "intelligent", but you didn't look up "quasi".

Nor have you considered how "quasi-" and "intelligent" would combine together to form the term "quasi-intelligent".

Nor have you attempted to provide any concise definition for that term, which you invented, despite being asked to provide such a definition many times.

Let's face it. You don't know what "quasi-intelligent" means, do you? You just made it up.

i.e. This is the alternative solution to an age-old question.
"IS THERE A GOD (an Intelligent Creator)?
No, but "THERE IS A MATHEMATICAL (a quasi-Intelligent self-referential dynamically creative universe)

You seem to be claiming by inventing the word "quasi-intelligent", you have proven the existence of a god-like thing?

You don't think you're over-reaching just a tiny bit, there?

By the way, I don't for a second believe that you think the words "self-referential dynamic creative universe" actually mean anything when strung together in that particular order. You're just making shit up and hoping I'll be stupid enough to buy your bullshit act.

Franky, Write4U, I find your whole schtick a bit insulting. We've been at this discussion for a while, and you're still randomly cutting and pasting irrelevant but basic scientific facts. I have a good science education, Write4U. Do you really think you've taught me stuff I didn't already know, with your cutting and pasting from wikipedia?

You're completely unable to answer simple questions I have put to you about your own claims. But at the same time, apparently you think you're in a position to teach me lots of science. And you generally ignore me whenever I tell you why you're wrong or try to teach you some science. It's quite bizarre behaviour, from a man who claims to be interested in this stuff.

What is your aim in posting all this nonsense here, Write4U? Is it just attention-seeking? Are you lonely? Does it matter to you whether anything you claim is true, or is it enough that it provokes responses?

And your counter-argument is? I promise I won't call it drivel.
Does time exist independent of space? If yes, can you prove it?

First: Drivel does not require a counter-argument. Drivel isn't an argument.

Second: There has been no discussion of "does time exist independent of space?" I have made no claims to that effect. Perhaps you have, somewhere in the drivel; I don't recall. There is no need for me to defend a claim I have not made.

Third: Let us review what I called "pure drivel". I will walk you through why it is drivel. You wrote:

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.​

The first part of this claims that time somehow springs into existence once it becomes "necessary". You don't explain why or when time would become "necessary" for anything. You don't explain how time would then come into existence, following this "necessity" becoming apparent.

Moving on, you claim that time doesn't exist until it is necessary "for a chronology". What's a chronology, I wonder? Reaching for the dictionary, I find this:

chronology (n.)

1. An arrangement of events in time.
   
2. A record of events in the order of their occurrence.
3. The determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events.

Your claim, recall, is that time comes into existence when it is necessary for a chronology. In other words, you're saying that time comes into existence when it is necessary to arrange events in time. Or, to put it more simply: time comes into existence when time is necessary. Pure drivel. This is an empty claim; it says precisely nothing.

Alternatively, maybe you're saying that time comes into existence when a record of events is necessary. But, again, you don't say what makes a record of events necessary, who needs that record, the mechanism by which the need for the record causes time to exist, or anything else. So, again, I have to conclude that what you wrote is pure drivel.

Moving on, you claim that time is "invoked", which implies an "invoker". You also mention "creation", which implies a creator. You don't explain who or what this creator/invoker is, or how or why it invokes time.

Moving on, you claim that time is invoked "by the creation of that chronology", which flatly contradicts the first half of your claim, where you say that time appears when it is needed for a chronology. That is, in the first half of your drivel, you claim that the time comes first, then the chronology, but in the second half you claim the chronology comes first, then the time. It's a 31 word sentence and you still managed to contradict yourself. Pure drivel.

Lastly, you tell us what this record (chronology) is of. It's a chronology of "the durable existence of a patterned physical object", apparently.

It's a mystery what a "patterned physical object" is supposed to be, or which patterned physical object needs the chronology and therefore necessitates the "invocation" of time. You don't attempt to explain any of that because you're just making this shit up as you go along - no brain required.

Another mystery: what is "durable existence"? What would "non-durable existence" look like?

Put together, it is clear that this drivel is just the usual Write4U meaningless word salad. It's pure pseudoscience - something that is concocted to sound vaguely like it might be scientific, while actually being functionally nonsensical and/or meaningless and/or just wrong.

And now it seems like you think this drivel is somehow related to an idea you have about how time cannot exist independent of space, even though this is a new idea that you've just had. And you want me to try to prove your latest random thought wrong, because if I can't or won't do that I suppose you imagine it will make me look bad?

Let us end with this: this overly-detailed analysis of one 31 word sentence is not something I normally waste my time on. I know that you will ignore everything I have written about this, as is your habit. The message that you should try to make some sense instead of writing drivel is not one that you care about, apparently. But you should be aware that each time I comment that something you wrote is "word salad", the same kind of list of the many reasons why it is drivel always applies. Moreover, I have noticed that you are never able to defend the words I label as "word salad" because, I think, at some level you know it's drivel you just made up. But maybe you're hoping that at least some other people won't notice and will think you're a scientific genius with great insight into how the universe works, because you're able to string scientific-sounding words together in random orders.

It's all a big fat load of dynamic causal durable invoked permittive conditional microtubular bullshit, if you ask me.

 

[Write4U]

How can a concept regulate a physical system? What is the mechanism?

Determinism. All mathematical functions are deterministic functions. This means they return the same results each time they are called with a specific set of input values.

Generic mathematics" is just something you made up on the spot. You just made that up, too.

It is you who insists on me using "my own words". Now you complain?

]You seem to be claiming by inventing the word "quasi-intelligent", you have proven the existence of a god-like thing?

And what is a god-like thing? Are you making up new words?

You don't think you're over-reaching just a tiny bit, there?

Why would that be overreaching?
I have not invented the word "intelligent", nor the word "quasi". I merely use them correctly to make a compound word that precisely describes the concept.
If I said "artificial intelligence", would that be an overreach? Do you understand that term? If so, why does the term "quasi-intelligent" give you so much difficulty in understanding?

The reason we have a Periodic table is because some human beings invented one. Nature has no period table.

No. This is where you don't see this in proper context.
Humans did not invent the Periodic table We codified and symbolized it from observation of natural processes.

You keep talking about "intrinsic mathematical properties". Name one. Show me where the maths is in a physical object.

Wrong question. Maths is not a physical object. It becomes expressed in physical processes and objects. Mathematical fuction is a natural function that relates values or sets of values in a particular way and can be represented with human symbolic language. (Table of elements is a mathematical set).

Example; Nature and Puzzled Mathematicians

STEM Series: Discovering Math in Nature

Fibonacci noticed repeating patterns in nature. He wondered why these patterns occurred: a certain sequence of numbers kept appearing in nature. These patterns include the spiral of a seashell, the structure of a pinecone, the shape of hurricanes, and the density of a cabbage.

This spiral has a mathematic background: it follows a sequence of numbers, known today as the Fibonacci sequence. This spiral appears everywhere in nature—as well as in human design.

In short, the golden ratio is another mathematical pattern that appears in geometry, art, nature, and architecture.

https://www.acornnaturalists.com/blog/math-in-nature/#

The Golden Ratio is a "Common Denominator" in many natural patterns.
Why is that?

Fibonacci Reflection
Exploring the beautiful interconnectivity of our world and beyond.

The Fibonacci Spiral, which is my key aesthetic focus of this project, is a simple logarithmic spiral based upon Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio, Φ. Because this spiral is logarithmic, the curve appears the same at every scale, and can thus be considered fractal.
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mjanesaad...ch-fractals-the-fibonacci-spiral-and-nature/#

And a fractal is a "mathematical object", and therein lies the crux.

 

[Write4U]

Tell me, what's wrong with "word salad" if the product is both palatable and poetic like a salad assembled by a master chef. I don't think that counts as a map, but is in fact the territory. So, thank you...

 

[Write4U]

Ontology of Mathematics
Edited by Rafal Urbaniak (Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego)
Assista1nt editors: Pawel Pawlowski, Sam Roberts
https://philpapers.org/browse/ontology-of-mathematics

James R. said: Relevance: a lot!!!!!!!! [Something about broken clocks being right twice a day goes here.]

Yes, it is a mathematical fact. I agree it is relevant, because naturally repeating mathematical patterns are clearly observable every day and night.

 

[Write4U]

But now, you're doing a full 180 degree turn, because now you're claiming that gravity - a physical force or effect - is "causal to many mathematical laws and universal constants". That is, you're now claiming that a physical effect somehow causes mathematics.

Well yes, of course.
A state of Nothingness has no mathematics . A state of One is mathematic. Can't have mathematics without relationa values. Now do you understand the chronology I was painting with positing "emerging mathematical regularities".

Note: there is no "irreducible complexity" . There had to be a beginning and it was a singularity, the rest becomes the mathematical unfolding of potential values interacting in accordance with prescribed natural mathematical functions, which humans can observe, codify, and symbolize with human accessible language, so that we may "understand" objective reality, in addition to our daily subjective experience of reality.

Electric potential

(such a pretty "self-referential pattern")
Electric potential around two oppositely charged conducting spheres. Purple represents the highest potential, yellow zero, and cyan the lowest potential. The electric field lines are shown leaving perpendicularly to the surface of each sphere.

In short, an electric potential is the electric potential energy per unit charge. This value can be calculated in either a static (time-invariant) or a dynamic (time-varying) electric field at a specific time with the unit joules per coulomb (J⋅C−1) or volt (V). The electric potential at infinity is assumed to be zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential#

Note the mathematical expressions contained in that short synopsis.

 

[Write4U]

Are you going to do that, then? When are you going to do that? Will that be in your next post?

I am painting you a verbal map of the mathematical properties of spacetime. There is no magic. There is a Logic aspect to the Universe. If it weren't then chaos would reign forever. But it didn't. Why?
Sets of unwritten Logical Mathematical relational equations emerging from the spacetime geometry and chemistry!

What makes it mathematical is the recognition of the deterministic outcomes in accordance to certain mathematical patterns and functional behaviors that seem to be pervasive throughout the universe as "unwritten" generic universal laws.

 

[Write4U]

You keep talking about "intrinsic mathematical properties". Name one. Show me where the maths is in a physical object.

The Table of Elements?

Ununpentium, for example, was created by firing calcium-48 ions (a nucleus with 20 protons and 28 neutrons) at an americium target (with 95 protons and 148 neutrons), creating a fused nucleus of ununpentium-291 with 115 protons and 176 neutrons.

As for why chemists create super-heavy elements, there are a number of reasons. A lot of it is simply down to Russia and the US competing to see who could discover the most exotic elements. Curiosity, of course, also plays a big part -- humans love seeing how far they can go, just for the sake of testing the universe's boundaries.

Most importantly, though, there is some science to be gained from such experiments. With each new element that we discover, our knowledge of the periodic table, and thus the universe, swells. The mere fact that we were able to synthesize these heavy elements in the lab means there's a good chance that they exist elsewhere in the universe -- perhaps in the supernova of a dying star, or harnessed by an advanced alien race. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.)

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...vered-the-newest-member-of-the-periodic-table

Natura Artis Magistra! We discover and learn from the universe, not the other way around.
Synthesis is not a human invented process.

Chemical synthesis


Description
In chemistry, chemical synthesis is the artificial execution of chemical reactions to obtain one or several products. This occurs by physical and chemical manipulations usually involving one or more reactions. In modern laboratory uses, the process is reproducible and reliable. Wikipedia
The Universe has been engaged in synthesis since the beginning. And so it is with all "discovered" aspects of the unverse. The patterns existed before we "discovered them" and described them.

Humans themselves are the product of mathematical biomathematical functions.

Mathematical and theoretical biology
Images

Description
Mathematical and theoretical biology, or biomathematics, is a branch of biology which employs theoretical analysis, mathematical models and abstractions of the living organisms to investigate the more... Wikipedia

 

[Write4U]

DNA is a biological equation

What is the most important equation in biology?

Why “carbon dioxide + water → glucose + oxygen” is the most important equation in biology
Life largely owes its existence to this equation. Be sure to hug your house plant today.

Why “carbon dioxide + water → glucose + oxygen” is the most important equation in biology

• Every living creature needs three things: a source of energy, a source of carbon, and a source of electrons.
• Photosynthesis is the ultimate form of self-sufficiency.

Even though some microbes live without light or photosynthesis, most of the life on Earth is completely dependent on it. Photosynthesis provides energy-hungry life forms with the oxygen we need to survive, along with solid, carbon-containing molecules that we consume for energy and growth. Without photosynthesis, we would not be here. As a corollary, planets that don’t get enough sunlight to support photosynthesis almost certainly don’t host complex life forms.

more ....
https://bigthink.com/life/carbon-dioxide-water-glucose-oxygen/

 

[Write4U]

Tell me how a spacetime fabric can "unfold".

It emerges (unfolds) physically via mathematical rules and patterns. [/quote] Once more into the breach.
"Put a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms together and the patterns that spontaneously self-assemble and unfold are either gaseous, liquid, or solid, depending on the variable input from the environment such as pressure and/or temperature." (mathematical objects)
The combination of these elements results in a probabilistic assembly of molecules with a three-fold potential of expression as patterns of vapor, water, or ice, with astounding mathematical results.

Compare the properties of water with the properties of ice. Each set of H2O molecules able to form only those patterns that are mathematically permitted or restricted depending on the environmental values but having only 2 fundamental common denominators, H and O.

water

Snowflakes

https://www.noaa.gov/stories/how-do-snowflakes-form-science-behind-snow

Symmetry Of Snowflakes
Written by Ian Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Digital Media Fellow
Published September 2010

How closely do we look at the snowflakes that can cause such disruption and yet bring so much beauty? Snowflakes, famously, are six-sided but they also have six-fold symmetry. Ian Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, explains how the formation of ice crystals in clouds results in infinitely symmetrical snowflakes.

Snowflakes, famously, are six-sided. Some are featureless hexagons, but many are extraordinarily intricate, Jack Frost in miniature. So intricate that it is often said that no two snowflakes are identical. I’m not sure it’s possible to prove that experimentally—you’d have to examine every snowflake that ever fell. But there are so many different ways to put a snowflake together that it seems entirely likely. Except for the featureless hexagons, of course.

Not only are snowflakes six-sided: they have—to a very good approximation, ignoring damaged or partially melted ones, and so on—sixfold symmetry. The combination of order (symmetry) and chaos (irregular patterns of great diversity) seems difficult to explain. Are snowflakes made by a regular process, or a random one? It seems to be both. And so it is.

Johannes Kepler, famous for discovering that planets move in ellipses, was so intrigued by snowflakes that in 1611 he wrote a book about them: The Six-Cornered Snowflake. By pure thought, he was led to the suggestion that the hexagonal character of snowflakes arises because, on some microscopic level, they are made by packing lots of very tiny identical units together. Six identical coins fit exactly around a seventh to form a hexagon. Hexagons pack together like the cells in a honeycomb. Ice, said Kepler, is made from tiny hexagonal patterns, and snowflakes are crystals of ice.

What makes this idea all the more amazing is that in those days the atomic theory of matter was no more than obscure speculation by a few ancient Greek philosophers. We now know that Kepler was right. A snowflake is crystalline water, forming when water molecules pack tightly together. The commonest packing, which forms at normal atmospheric pressure and a temperature just below freezing, is almost a honeycomb.

https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/knowledge-archive/science/snowflakes/

Note the use of the term "honeycomb" in the article. What do bees "know" about hexagons? Are they mathematicians?

continued....

 

[Write4U]

Scientists reveal the beautiful simplicity underlying branching patterns in tissue

This classic problem of ‘branching morphogenesis’ has attracted the attention of scientists and mathematicians for centuries. Indeed, the mathematical underpinnings of morphogenesis – the biological process that causes organisms to develop their shape – was the subject of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson's classic text, published in 1917 by Cambridge University Press. Thompson had been a student at Cambridge, studying zoology at Trinity College, and briefly worked as a Junior Demonstrator in Physiology.

During development, branching structures are orchestrated by stem-like cells that drive a process of ductal growth and division (or ‘bifurcation’). Each subsequent branch will then either stop growing, or continue to branch again. In a study published in Nature earlier this year, Professor Simons working in collaboration with Dr Jacco van Rheenen at the Hubrecht Institute in Utrecht showed that, in the mammary gland, these processes of division and termination occur randomly, but with almost equal probability.

“While there’s a collective decision-making process going on involving multiple different stem cell types, our discovery that growth occurs almost at the flip of a coin suggested that there may be a very simple rule underpinning it,” says Professor Simons.

Professor Simons and his colleague Dr Edouard Hannezo observed that there was very little crossover of the branches – ducts seemed to expand to fill the space, but not overlap. This led them to conjecture that the ducts were growing and dividing, but as soon as a tip touched another branch, it would stop.

more........ https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...icity-underlying-branching-patterns-in-tissue

IMO, the phenomenon that is responsible for this is "self-referencing complex data sharing", also known as "quorum sensing", (and we know what system is responsible for that, )

 

[Write4U]

James R said: ↑
You keep talking about "intrinsic mathematical properties". Name one. Show me where the maths is in a physical object.

What is a Pattern in Nature?

The world is full of natural visual patterns, from spots on a leopard to spirals of a fiddlehead fern. Some patterns are as small as the molecular arrangement of crystals and as big as the massive spiral pattern of the Milky Way Galaxy. Patterns can be found everywhere in nature.

While one might think of patterns as uniform and regular, some patterns appear more random yet consistent. The definition of a pattern in nature is a consistent form, design, or expression that is not random.

There are multiple causes of patterns in nature. Some patterns are governed by mathematics. These are called the "Golden Ratio", this is a rule that describes a specific pattern in nature. This mathematical formula is seen in spiral patterns such as a snail's shell or the whorls of a lily.

Repeating Patterns in Nature

Patterns that can be found in nature consist of repeating shapes, lines, or colors. A repeating pattern in nature has regular intervals and is occurring in a repeated pattern or sequence. The main categories of repeated patterns in nature are fractals, line patterns, meanderings, bubbles/foam, and waves.

Fractals are best described as a non-linear pattern that infinitely repeats in different sizes. The uniformity of a fractal is the repeating shape, although the form may appear in varied sizes. Examples of fractals observed in nature include snowflakes, the branching of trees and blood vessels, or a peacock's plume.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/patterns-in-nature-definition-examples.html#

 

[DaveC426913]

Humans did not invent the Periodic table

Yes they really did.

We codified and symbolized it from observation of natural processes.

There was no table before humans invented it. And by the way, a table is only one of many ways we have represented the properties of elements over the years.

We chose to represent them based on properties we think are important in that era. Nature does not decide what is important and what is not.

 

[Write4U]

Yes they really did.

So the Table of elements is based on what available information?
Why do all representations describe a mathematically ordered pattern if that wasn't necessary?

There was no table before humans invented it. And by the way, a table is only one of many ways we have represented the properties of elements over the years.

I agree. But the structural symmetries of different atoms do have different patterns and depending on the number of electrons an atom can be represented graphically as well as photographed ;

Note the symmetry in the arrangement of the subatomic values.

So you also agree that the human Table of elements is a descriptive symbolization of the self-ordering mathematical patterns of the different elements?

We chose to represent them based on properties we think are important in that era. Nature does not decide what is important and what is not.

I agree. Nature does not have any descriptive literature, but it most certainly has guiding principles, We can observe those.

I see prominent mathematical patterns in the physical arrangements.

The maths in nature are the same maths that allow humans and many other living creatures to develop the artificial creation of naturally occurring discrete interactions. The artificial copying of naturally occurring processes in the course of applied mathematics has allowed us to start reaching for the stars. All the mathematical descriptions and predictions were met and we landed a Rover on Mars.

And a spider weaves a mathematical pattern for maximum web integrity. It doesn't know that but evolution has given her with the fundamental blueprint of fashioning a web in an efficient and orderly manner.

The different patterns necessary for landing a physical object the size of a rocket existed before humans used them, codified them, and symbolized them with human maths. Other living organisms don't need to codify mathematical patterns, to possess fundamental mathematics. Evolutionary processes will select the mathematically most efficient patterns for survival.

The fact we can use mathematical measurements to copy nature and artificially use the mathematical potentials of the universe in a lab.. What we lack is size, a mathematical property, but we make up with the ability to compute and record naturally emergent properties in a small sampling.

A Lemur can tell the difference between "more" and "less", a differential equation, and can use that mathematical skill to make an informed decision and be rewarded with a treat (positive reinforcement).
Air dwellers (birds, insects) are masters at using aerodynamics from evolved efficiencies in staying aloft and alive in the sky and therefore have an advantage over earth-bound animals.
Many predators use triangulation to hunt or strike prey that has formidable defenses.
Watch a cuttlefish capture a crab from behind so as to avoid the pincers.
It seems to me those are strategies that rely on the ability to successfully process information of a mathematical nature or as a biologist once remarked; "Good at problem solving".

Isn't the evolutionary process of increasing adaptation to the environment itself a mathematical function?
I see mathematics as a codified form of Logic that must be a universal "common denominator".

The way I see in all of this is that Mathematics (relational spacetime values) represents a form of Universal functional Logic. As much as I see emergent time as a mathematical function. It certainly is not physical.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Probably the best place to start - and to end - is with this statement from you:

Tell me, what's wrong with "word salad" if the product is both palatable and poetic like a salad assembled by a master chef. I don't think that counts as a map, but is in fact the territory. So, thank you...

First, I told you what is wrong with your word salad, in some detail, in my most recent replies to you. The fact that you simply chose to ignore what I wrote there shows (a) extraordinary rudeness and/or (b) some kind of blockage in your ability to think about things in a rational way.

Either way, continuing this discussion with you seems like a completely pointless exercise that can only exacerbate the frustrating feeling that I am completely wasting my time in engaging with you at all.

I have to say: you're coming across as unhinged and delusional at this point in our discussion. Maybe it's just a self-protection mechanism. Maybe you're just pretending to be a crazy man. Maybe you're trolling. Or maybe you're actually losing your marbles. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm actually concerned for your wellbeing if you continue down these nonsensical rabbit holes. A person who sees hidden connections in everything around them and who holds beliefs that are almost entirely disconnected with reality, and who is unable/unwilling to reflect on his own beliefs, might very well be in the grip of schizophrenia. One symptom that appears to be absent so far is withdrawal from social contact, but that can be a gradual escalation.

I say this not to insult you. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, so I am certainly not diagnosing you. However, it does worry me that you appear to be losing touch with reality. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you just feel like you've dug yourself a hole on this forum and now you feel compelled to play the part of the crazy man, and you'd prefer to be thought crazy than to admit you might be wrong.

If, however, you haven't actually noticed that you're coming across as a crazy man, and you're not sure about what to do to correct that impression, then maybe it's time to seek some help from a professional (in real life, I mean, not here). I honestly hope you make a full recovery, if this is the case.

Now, just to be clear, though this might not help you, depending on your mental state, I want to tell you that "word salad" is not a compliment. Your frantic cutting and pasting of random stuff from the internet is not poetic or masterful. On the contrary, it looks like you're having difficulty controlling your urges and you are displaying almost manic behaviours. Your writings here are very far from being the work of a Master. It seems like you can barely concentrate long enough to start to assemble a response to another person's post, and then once you get going you're unable to keep yourself on point. Instead, you just head off into flights of fancy, randomly cutting and pasting other people's words that you don't understand, while failing to answer questions and utterly failing to connect your own intuitions with facts or reasons.

It is more than clear that you have completely failed to grasp the point of the map-territory distinction. You have never given any sign that you understand the distinction or why it is important. You have consistently failed to respond to direct questions in which I have tried to probe your understanding of it. And now, here, it seems like just one more random term you've absorbed, to add into the hodge-podge mix of poorly-understood or mis-understood concepts that you recycle in your cut and pastes.

Also, as usual, you seem to have no idea of how one idea should connect to the next in any coherent piece of writing. It's like your brain just randomly switches gear from one topic to the next, and you don't even feel the need to make any explicit connections in what you write. It is partly because your writings are such a stream-of-consciousness mess that you come across as unhinged.

At the same time, though, I often get the feeling that - just maybe - this is a self-defensive posture, a sort of wall you're throwing up. Maybe it helps you to go on without admitting to yourself that you have any areas of uncertainty or ignorance. Maybe you're hoping that sufficient obfuscation will fool some readers into thinking you're a Master Chef after all. Maybe you think there's a fine line between madness and genius. Who knows?

I don't think I can help you in your current state, Write4U. If you're sane and trolling, then I'm wasting my time on you; you win. If you're delusional, then I'm not going to be able to help you by humoring your delusions.

Before I close this thread, I will allow you one more chance to attempt a rational response to the matters that have come up in our recent discussions. I don't expect you to respond to the many questions you have ignored line-by-line; there are far too many of them to make that a realistic expectation. However, I would like to see from you a coherent statement of your own position on the matters we have discussed. Importantly I want to see a post from you that is entirely in your own words. No cut-and-pastes from random internet sites. No wikipedia quotes. No dictionary definitions. Just summarise your own thoughts in your own words.

Do you think you can do that? If not, I will close the thread, since I don't think continuing this is useful or healthy for any of us.

 

[James R]

I will also respond to your most recent series of posts, Write4U, in case you are under the delusion that they represent the work of a Master wordsmith. This won't take long.

First, I note that you have cut-and-pasted hefty swathes of random basic-science information and infographics. The topics are very random, as usual, and irrelevant to the main discusion, as usual. I will not be commenting on any of these, but I list them just to highlight the sheer level of irrelevance and the scattergun inability to focus on the topic at hand:

• Brief biography of Fibonacci.
• Fibonacci spiral.
• The Golden ratio
• Highlighting the fact that the Fibonacci spiral is logarithmic (why this is supposed to be important or relevant is anybody's guess)
• Definition of electric potential, and a random pretty picture of two charged spheres showing fields lines and potential.
• Pretty picture of the Periodic Table.
• Random notes on the element Ununpentium.
• Definition of "chemical synthesis".
• Definition of the field of "Mathematical and theoretical biology", with some pretty pictures.
• Pretty picture of DNA, showing some chemical formula for the base pairs.
• Random image of the Calvin cycle.
• Random information about the needs of living things.
• Random information about photosynthesis.
• Pretty pictures of water and snowflakes.
• Random information on the symmetries of snowflakes.
• Random historical snippets about old theories of snowflakes.
• Pretty picture of a beehive.
• Random information on "branching morphogenesis", with an unidentified image and a random youtube link.
• Random information about patterns in nature.
• A definition of fractals.
• Pretty pictures showing diagrammatical representations of electron shell structures in various atoms.
• Random powerpoint slide about the origin of the word "atom".
• Random wall poster about basic chemistry.
• Random information about orb webs built by spiders.

Some of these items are pure irrelevance. Some of the others share only the general theme of "patterns". In most cases, the topic of discussion in this thread is not touched upon.

The vast majority of words in your recent posts are not yours. They are part of the random cut-and-pastes and you do not connect them to anything relevant. In my next post, I will extract out the very few contributions that are yours and respond.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

In a previous post, you cut-and-pasted a paper on the "Ontology of Mathematics". I asked you several specific questions about that. As expected, you answered none of them. I assume this is because you have not actually read the paper, or if you read it you didn't understand it. So you decided to ignore this and go off to look for pretty pictures of beehives instead. It's a pity you can't focus because there was a chance we could make some progress there.

Anyway, moving on to your words...

A state of Nothingness has no mathematics. A state of One is mathematic.

There is no such thing as a "state of nothingness", although we might infer at least some kind of intended meaning from that. "A state of One" is just something you made up on the spot and it is meaningless.

Can't have mathematics without relationa values. Now do you understand the chronology I was painting with positing "emerging mathematical regularities".

What's wrong with you? Seriously. You have not "painted" any "chronology". I explained in detail, point by point, why your nonsense that mentioned "chronology" was pure drivel. Why don't you respond to what I write?

And now you think that a new 6-word claim ("Can't have mathematics without relationa values") explains a "chronology" that was never relevant or even a coherent idea in the first place?

Note: there is no "irreducible complexity" . There had to be a beginning and it was a singularity, the rest becomes the mathematical unfolding of potential values interacting in accordance with prescribed natural mathematical functions, which humans can observe, codify, and symbolize with human accessible language, so that we may "understand" objective reality, in addition to our daily subjective experience of reality.

This is just another useless statement of a belief. You don't know "there had to be a beginning". You don't know it was a singularity. And the rest is your usual word salad.

I am painting you a verbal map of the mathematical properties of spacetime.

No, you're not. You're just telling me your beliefs, over and over again. You give no justifications or reasons. You can't answer the simplest questions. You regularly contradict yourself. One item in your "map" doesn't connect to the next in any logical way.

There is no magic. There is a Logic aspect to the Universe. If it weren't then chaos would reign forever. But it didn't. Why?
Sets of unwritten Logical Mathematical relational equations emerging from the spacetime geometry and chemistry!

Again, this is just a repeat of your belief. If you're going to claim that "Logical Mathematican relational equations" emerged, you need to explain how and why they did that, and how you know this.

Humans themselves are the product of mathematical biomathematical functions.

Nothing you have ever posted here goes even part of the way towards proving this claim.

Life largely owes its existence to this equation. Be sure to hug your house plant today.

That's not an equation, and the statement is an overblown, unevidenced claim. Also a category mistake. I'm not sure if this is you or the cut-and-paste author. I'm assuming it's you, because it's the sort of thing you tend to post.

It emerges (unfolds) physically via mathematical rules and patterns.

Note that my question, which you haven't answered, was "Tell me how a spacetime fabric can 'unfold'". It's your claim. Don't you have a reason for making it? Why do you believe it?

"Put a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms together and the patterns that spontaneously self-assemble and unfold are either gaseous, liquid, or solid, depending on the variable input from the environment such as pressure and/or temperature." (mathematical objects)
The combination of these elements results in a probabilistic assembly of molecules with a three-fold potential of expression as patterns of vapor, water, or ice, with astounding mathematical results.

Are these your words, or a cut-and-paste? You should make this clear in your posts - where other people's ideas end and yours begin. Otherwise, you're plagiarising.

You have quote marks, so I assume some of this is you quoting from somebody else. The first quote is unremarkable. But then there's a meaningless addendum that somebody added: "(mathematical objects)". I'm guessing that's your contribution. Then there's another paragraph about a "probabilistic assembly of molecules"; I don't know what that's about and I suspect you don't either.

Compare the properties of water with the properties of ice. Each set of H2O molecules able to form only those patterns that are mathematically permitted or restricted depending on the environmental values but having only 2 fundamental common denominators, H and O.

As usual, you have it arse-backwards. Water molecules form patterns. We can describe those patterns using mathematics. The "correct" mathematical descriptions are the ones we "permit", because they match what physical water molecules do. We throw away all the incorrect mathematical descriptions of water molecules, because they are not useful to us.

Note the use of the term "honeycomb" in the article. What do bees "know" about hexagons? Are they mathematicians?

How surprising to find the word "honeycomb" in an article about bees! Who'd have thought?

What do bees know about hexagons? It's impossible to know for sure. Do bees use mathematical ideas? It seems that they do. This seems to be instinctual. Let's say they do. So what?

I see prominent mathematical patterns in the physical arrangements.

Yes, but only because you received some prior education about patterns and their mathematical properties. In other words, you have an existing map of the territory. But that map is not the territory.

Woosh. That was the sound of this flying over your head again.