Quantum Physics interpretation ideas

[The God]

Perhaps the explanation lies in the question ; if the universe began in a state of pure energetic chaos, how was it possible that orderly patterns could emerge from this chaotic state?

.

The orderly pattern and chaotic state may appear contradictory but the fact is an orderly pattern is an {element} of [chaotic states] set.

 

[Write4U]

Well I'm glad to see you are thinking about it.

I have been thinking about it for 15 years, a relatively short time compared to the fact that some of the greatest minds have been thinking and discussing it for hundreds of years.
This is why I have always qualified my position as IMO.

The orderly pattern and chaotic state may appear contradictory but the fact is an orderly pattern is an {element} of [chaotic states] set.

Yes, I know.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics

This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
"Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."

I interpret that in abstract terms the determined future is mathematically Implied by the present.

 

[The God]

Yes, I know.

.

So if you know, why a pattern cannot emerge out of chaos? Why do you need my namesake?

 

[Write4U]

So if you know, why a pattern cannot emerge out of chaos?

That's the whole point of a self-ordering imperative, other than a sentient creator.

What is Chaos Theory?
Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions.

Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature.

Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.

Principles of Chaos

Why do you need my namesake?

I don't.

 

[HawkI]

I see myself as a reformed Crank, in some instance a Crank on the mend, I genuinely believe that knowledge is finite and everything can be known, and that knowing everything is the limit of knowledge. I believe we are so close right now to knowing everything.

 

[danshawen]

Perhaps the explanation lies in the question ; if the universe began in a state of pure energetic chaos, how was it possible that orderly patterns could emerge from this chaotic state?

I can imagine that there had to be (and still are) some natural (pre-existing) rules which guide these emergent regularities. Certain inherent universal rules (potentials) which are either permittive or restrictive of certain physical functions, resulting in constant patterns from very subtle abstract implications to gross expression in our universe. (David Bohm)

We have observed these natural ordering functions and patterns and invented a symbolic language in the forms of numbered values and relationships of these values as equations, to describe these functions and patterns, which are expressed in our world as "physical objects and their functional behaviors".

We called this language mathematics, but the word mathematics itself is a mathematical arrangement of human invented letters, which if placed in the correct order, attain an expressed "meaning".

You've got to be kidding (about the place of mathematics in the hierarchy of reality).

It's a TOOL. There were stones long before there were hammers, just as there were numerical orders, conservation laws and laws of motion, AND DIRECT PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS a very long time before we had an inkling of a symbolic language that was capable of expressing them in small enough bits for our finite minds to manipulate.

Thinking otherwise is making a simple symbolic language into some mangled and conceited perversion akin to the superstitious tradition of religious idol worship. And it stinks, frankly. Reeks of another homo sapien centered delusion, it does. Like the idea that Global Warming will fix itself, or that G-d will fix it, even if we are the ones responsible for breaking it.

 

[Write4U]

You've got to be kidding (about the place of mathematics in the hierarchy of reality).

To be clear, I never said that human mathematics are the causal functions by which reality becomes expressed.
But it seems logical to me that if humans are able to translate specific permitted and restricted behaviors of physical objects into a symbolic representation in the form of values and equations which seem to create the observable physical behavioral patterns of these natural functions, as they emerge from a prior state of Chaos, there must exist an inherent ordering aspect to spacetime itself.

It's a TOOL. There were stones long before there were hammers, just as there were numerical orders, conservation laws and laws of motion, AND DIRECT PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS a very long time before we had an inkling of a symbolic language that was capable of expressing them in small enough bits for our finite minds to manipulate.

I agree completely. My point is that if we are able to represent these inherent (pre-existing or emerging) proportional relationships, some which humans are now able to represent in symbolically abstractions which we have named mathematically functional values and equations.

Thinking otherwise is making a simple symbolic language into some mangled and conceited perversion akin to the superstitious tradition of religious idol worship.

I agree and it does not contradict my position.

And it stinks, frankly. Reeks of another homo sapien centered delusion, it does.

That's why Bertrant Russel offered a qualification;

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Like the idea that Global Warming will fix itself, or that G-d will fix it, even if we are the ones responsible for breaking it.

Oh, I am confident that the Earth (not God) will fix itself, once humans stop polluting and causing imbalances in the self ordering (mathematical functions) of the ecosphere. It may take a long time to regain that balance, but the earth IS a self-balancing system, until a threshold is reached and the mathematics of the domino effect will collapse the entire system. However, the earth itself doesn't care which species live or die.

As George Carlin observed in his usual scathing indictment of human behaviors.

 

[danshawen]

That's why Bertrant Russel offered a qualification; https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

My all-time favorite philosopher. I did not mean to imply that mathematics was without beauty. Its focus on the limited truth it can provide makes it unique among all of the languages we have devised. Supremely unambiguous. Utilitarian. But it really is not something I consider to be superior to any other language, even and especially to the extent to which it is capable of capturing the whole truth about anything. It can't possibly. There is much more to the universe than proportional math, vector calculus, group theory, linear algebra, complex math, Boolean algebra, Statistics, finite math, Galois Fields, topology, geometry, and whatever else you care to toss into the mix from a comprehensive mathematical toolkit.

Of all of the systems of mathematical logic ONLY Gödel's incompleteness theorem is both 100% complete and consistent. You can only accomplish such a feat within a system of reasoning by focus on limiting the scope of the truth it can provide, in this case, considering only those two attributes. The downside is, there isn't very much else Gödel's system of reasoning can say about anything else. And this consequence extends to all of mathematical reasoning; however nuanced or convoluted or extended or qualified it may be, it will never be perfection in terms of consistency and completeness within the limitations imposed by its own structure.

It may take a long time to regain that balance, but the earth IS a self-balancing system, until a threshold is reached and the mathematics of the domino effect will collapse the entire system. However, the earth itself doesn't care which species live or die.

Yes, for certain. Big fan of Carlin, too. Like me, Carlin, like Churchill, had his share of "black dog" (depression) days.

For no particular reason, this was one of mine. It comes out in whatever I am writing at the time. I just need to stop writing for a while.

 

[Write4U]

For no particular reason, this was one of mine. It comes out in whatever I am writing at the time. I just need to stop writing for a while

Please don't, I always read your posts with interest and learn something from them.

My all-time favorite philosopher. I did not mean to imply that mathematics was without beauty. Its focus on the limited truth it can provide makes it unique among all of the languages we have devised. Supremely unambiguous. Utilitarian. But it really is not something I consider to be superior to any other language, even and especially to the extent to which it is capable of capturing the whole truth about anything. It can't possibly. There is much more to the universe than proportional math, vector calculus, group theory, linear algebra, complex math, Boolean algebra, Statistics, finite math, Galois Fields, topology, geometry, and whatever else you care to toss into the mix from a comprehensive mathematical toolkit.

Of all of the systems of mathematical logic ONLY Gödel's incompleteness theorem is both 100% complete and consistent. You can only accomplish such a feat within a system of reasoning by focus on limiting the scope of the truth it can provide, in this case, considering only those two attributes. The downside is, there isn't very much else Gödel's system of reasoning can say about anything else. And this consequence extends to all of mathematical reasoning; however nuanced or convoluted or extended or qualified it may be, it will never be perfection in terms of consistency and completeness within the limitations imposed by its own structure.

I have posted this before, but in case you missed it, I'll link it again;

I found it remarkable and informative.

 

[river]

Please don't, I always read your posts with interest and learn something from them.

I have posted this before, but in case you missed it, I'll link it again;

I found it remarkable and informative.

How does the mathematical produce the physical ?

So far , this video , is based on objects which already exist .

 

[Write4U]

How does the mathematical produce the physical ?
So far , this video , is based on objects which already exist .

I see a deeper meaning. As Livio explains, we can draw a circle on a piece of paper but that is only an interpretation of a circle that exists "out there" (in the abstract), as in the Poincare Conjecture, where a circle can be reduced to a single point without encountering a "break" in the abstract surface of that imperative to form a circle. A natural abstract potential .

Now suppose we actually collapse this infinite potential into a single point (a singularity) which contains all the potentials of abstract circles from infinitely large to an infinitely small singularity. This would be just one example of abstract natural mathematical imperatives.
I can imagine an eventual release of this potential as a mega-quantum event converting this infinitely compressed potential into a form of energy. The BB.

I qualify this as my interpretation of David Bohm's; Wholeness and the Implicate Order.
If I recall, he named these timeless abstract mathematical imperatives; "Insight Intelligence"

I believe you might identify with this term on a spiritual level also. But from my perspective, this creative causality would not be a self-aware sentient being, but an abstract mathematically implied imperative.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
How does the mathematical produce the physical ?
So far , this video , is based on objects which already exist .

I see a deeper meaning. As Livio explains, we can draw a circle on a piece of paper but that is only an interpretation of a circle that exists "out there" (in the abstract), as in the Poincare Conjecture, where a circle can be reduced to a single point without encountering a "break" in the abstract surface of that imperative to form a circle. A natural abstract potential .

Now suppose we actually collapse this infinite potential into a single point (a singularity) which contains all the potentials of abstract circles from infinitely large to an infinitely small singularity. This would be just one example of abstract natural mathematical imperatives.
I can imagine an eventual release of this potential as a mega-quantum event converting this infinitely compressed potential into a form of energy. The BB.

I qualify this as my interpretation of David Bohm's; Wholeness and the Implicate Order.
If I recall, he named these timeless abstract mathematical imperatives; "Insight Intelligence"

I believe you might identify with this term on a spiritual level also. But from my perspective, this creative causality would not be a self-aware sentient being, but an abstract mathematically implied imperative.

Notice the circle rather than sphere .

 

[Write4U]

Notice the circle rather than sphere .

Sorry, I quote the Poincare Conjecture incorrectly. It should read: the Poincare Conjecture, where a sphere can be reduced to a single point without encountering a "break" in the abstract surface of that imperative to form a sphere.

Actually this tendency to form a sphere exists in many forms, even in manifolds, as long as there is no break in the surface.

For compact 2-dimensional surfaces without boundary, if every loop can be continuously tightened to a point, then the surface is topologically homeomorphic to a 2-sphere (usually just called a sphere). The Poincaré conjecture, proved by Grigori Perelman, asserts that the same is true for 3-dimensional spaces.

But it does not work for say, a doughnut shaped universe (which used to be one of my favorite images of the Universe.)

Neither of the two colored loops on this torus can be continuously tightened to a point. A torus is not homeomorphic to a sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_conjecture

 

[river]

But a three dimensional sphere will have a break in its surface when brought down to a two dimensional object .

It can't be any other way .

See , your going from two dimensions to three dimensions .

I go from three dimensions down to two . See my point ?

 

[Write4U]

But a three dimensional sphere will have a break in its surface when brought down to a two dimensional object .

It can't be any other way .

See , your going from two dimensions to three dimensions .

I go from three dimensions down to two . See my point ?

Only if you see this as if we live inside the sphere. But as I understand it, the universe is the 2 D outer surface of the sphere or the manifold.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
But a three dimensional sphere will have a break in its surface when brought down to a two dimensional object .

It can't be any other way .

See , your going from two dimensions to three dimensions .

I go from three dimensions down to two . See my point ?

Only if you see this as if we live inside the sphere. But as I understand it, the universe is the 2 D outer surface of the sphere or the manifold.

Not possible .

Think about 2D in terms of the ability to manifest anything .

 

[Write4U]

Not possible .
Think about 2D in terms of the ability to manifest anything .

I believe you need to think about space as 2D slices of now and in terms of a flat but curved "nowverse". This link explains it much better than I can;

On a cosmic scale, the curvature created in space by the countless stars, black holes, dust clouds, galaxies, and so on constitutes just a bunch of little bumps on a space that is, overall, boringly flat.

Thus the seeming contradiction: Matter curves spacetime.

The universe is flat is easily explained, too: spacetime is curved, and so is space; but on a large scale, space is overall flat.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/