Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

[Michael 345]

Do you believe the concept of "one" needs an actual physical object named or is it a abstract value, applicable in a host of different mathematical constructs?

YES

If there is NOTHING in existence there is nothing to label (name) it, and no way to consider it to be a one of

Peter Higgs used purely theoretical mathematics applied in the Cern Collider to force the non-physical potential of an enfolded Higgs boson to become unfolded in reality.

So my reading of that is Peter Higgs had a thought about the Higgs boson, from observations?or a wild guess?

He then used the maths spanner to open up the formula to expose it

Fair summary?

Wild guess here

The Higgs boson was found ✓ but if the Higgs boson had not been in existence the formula would have meant nothing

 

[river]

↑

Do you believe the concept of "one" needs an actual physical object named or is it a abstract value, applicable in a host of different mathematical constructs?

YES

If there is NOTHING in existence there is nothing to label (name) it, and no way to consider it to be a one of

Exactly

 

[Write4U]

The Higgs boson was found ✓ but if the Higgs boson had not been in existence the formula would have meant nothing

The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential. It was a purely theoretical exercise. And it was not founded on observation. The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality.

It is "forged" from the Higgs field, conjured by application of pure energy using specific mathematical forces.
IMO, Dark Matter may well be the Higgs field, unobservable but potentially enfolded in the field. That would account for the missing mass and also be powerful enough to have a Universal impact?

Is this why scientists are afraid of the Higgs boson. It's potential for existence also poses a risk to the existence of the universe itself.

Hawking is not the only scientist who thinks so. The theory of a Higgs boson doomsday, where a quantum fluctuation creates a vacuum "bubble" that expands through space and wipes out the universe, has been around for a while. However, scientists don't think it could happen anytime soon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...s-higgs-boson-doomsday-he-s-not-alone-n198766

 

[DaveC426913]

The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential.

This is not true.

The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality.

This is not true.

Massive particles are harder to observe in nature because they are associated with greater energies but, like any other particle, we can more easily observe them in a lab setting. They are difficult to produce directly in relation to their mass, which is directly related to how much energy it takes to produce them.

 

[Write4U]

This is not true.

What is it that produced a Nobel prize?

This is not true.

Massive particles are harder to observe in nature because they are associated with greater energies but, like any other particle, we can more easily observe them in a lab setting. They are difficult to produce directly in relation to their mass, which is directly related to how much energy it takes to produce them.

Higgs bosons cannot exist separate from mass, they impart mass but do not exist as independently existing particles.

No one has ever observed a Higgs boson outside of Cern. Even in the collider it existed for something like a millionth of a second before it decayed

That's where the elusive Higgs boson comes into play; with its large mass and nonexistent spin, it's thought to generate a Higgs field that imbues all the particles that pass through it with mass. Particle physicists believe this field exists throughout the universe, but they also believe that it's incredibly unstable. It falls apart moments after its creation, leaving behind only products from its decay to prove that it ever existed.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/higgs-boson-exist.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

What is it that produced a Nobel prize?

Discovery of the Higgs boson?

Higgs bosons cannot exist separate from mass, they impart mass but do not exist as independently existing particles.

Something similar can be said for gravity.

No one has ever observed a Higgs boson outside of Cern. Even in the collider it existed for something like a millionth of a second before it decayed

True. So what?

While a number of things you are mentioning have some element of truth to them, several of them are false as stated.

 

[Write4U]

Discovery of the Higgs boson?

Yes, it had never been observed before. It was a theoretically predicted particle from our perspective.

Something similar can be said for gravity.

Absolutely, these are the inherent universal potentials which are known only by their effects. They are theoretical potentials of spacetime itself. Things do really behave the way we decribe it in our symbolic scientific language.

True. So what?

For one, we are in agreement on many of the aspects I have tried to posit. And I believe our differences here are not that great.

While a number of things you are mentioning have some element of truth to them, several of them are false as stated.

Well yes, I do sometimes fail in presenting my perspective, but as long as the errors are not fatal, then the rest of my propositions are true or agreeable?
Where do we agree?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, it had never been observed before. It was a theoretically predicted particle from our perspective.

The same can be said for almost any other particle. How is that factoid relevant here?

Absolutely, these are the inherent potentials which are known only by their effects. They are theoretical potentials of spacetime itself. Things do really behave the way we decribe it in our symbolic scientific language.

More philosophy...

For one, we are in agreement on many of the aspects I have tried to posit. And I believe our differences here are not that great.

Well that's the thing about semantics. You're saying the same thing we are, in practical terms, so we shouldn't be disagreeing. Until you start repeating them so many times as if we've missed something important. We haven't.

And it's problematic when it leads to you state things that are simply not true, such as "The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential." and "The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality."

...as long as the errors are not fatal...

Well, claiming the "universe is pseudo-intelligent" and "Higgs bosons don't exist in nature" are utterly unfounded assertions, so that's pretty fatal...

 

[Write4U]

The same can be said for almost any other particle. How is that factoid relevant here?
That's not true there are particles which incorporate the Higgs boson. It only imparts mass not matter.

More philosophy...

Yes, we're in the philosophy section.

Well that's the thing about semantics. You're saying the same thing we are, in practical terms, so we shouldn't be disagreeing. Until you start repeating them so many times as if we've missed something important. We haven't.

OK.

And it's problematic when it leads to you state things that are simply not true, such as "The Higgs boson doesn't exist as a boson in nature, it exists as a potential." and "The Higgs boson cannot be observed as a naturally occurring physical object, it can only be observed when it changes states from "enfolded" to "unfolded" in reality."

Yes, for a millionth of a second. A Higgs boson does not exist on its own, it cannot.

Well, claiming the "universe is pseudo-intelligent" and "Higgs bosons don't exist in nature" are utterly unfounded assertions, so that's pretty fatal...

No they are not unfounded.

In this image, the solid line is a 1D version of the Higgs potential, and the y-axis is related to the potential energy at that position. Looking at the points of energy minima, you can see that they don’t correspond to a zero of field strength, which occurs at the center of the plot. Spontaneously, the Higgs will break its own symmetry, and decays, into this low energy state, just like the ball.

So the Higgs field hanging out on its own, has this weird self interaction, where it spontaneously breaks its own symmetry. Because the lowest energy state occurs at a point where the Higgs field strength is NOT zero, it can interact with other fields at every point in space time, allowing fermions (remember, our matter particles from before?) to bounce off it and become massive.

https://www.quora.com/topic/Higgs-Boson

And you are still dwelling on pseudo which term I dropped pages ago. That's not fair. I corrected that and you know it.
Do tell me what's wrong with the term quasi-intelligent to describe the mathematical nature of nature. Why don't you look up that definition, I gave it several pages ago.

Our disagreements are about inconsequential details... not the greater picture. It is certainly not in conflict with mainstream science.

 

[Michael 345]

Write4U

Do tell me what's wrong with the term quasi-intelligent to describe the mathematical nature of nature.

It's not needed

 

[Write4U]

Write4U

Do tell me what's wrong with the term quasi-intelligent to describe the mathematical nature of nature.

It's not needed

It's not wrong at all. It is perfectly suitable to describe the universe's mathematical nature.

The term Pseudo-intelligence is incorrect. Quasi-intelligent is a whole different state.

That is the main reason why we have religions. "Irreducible complexity" is the main theme of spiritualists, because it resembles a motivated intelligent creative force.

The term "quasi-intelligent" qualifies this apparent motivated intelligence as not a sentient being, but a purely implacable mathematical function based on the universal geometrics.

 

[Write4U]

If there is NOTHING in existence there is nothing to label (name) it, and no way to consider it to be a one of

Does a "value" need to be physical? What if it is a mathematical pattern, like a Platonic solid.

In three-dimensional space, a Platonic solid is a regular, convex polyhedron. It is constructed by congruent (identical in shape and size) regular (all angles equal and all sides equal) polygonal faces with the same number of faces meeting at each vertex.Five solids meet these criteria:
TetrahedronCubeOctahedronDodecahedronIcosahedron
Four facesSix facesEight facesTwelve facesTwenty faces

(Animation)
(3D model)


(Animation)
(3D model)


(Animation)
(3D model)


(Animation)
(3D model)


(Animation)
(3D model)

Geometers have studied the Platonic solids for thousands of years.[1] They are named for the ancient Greek philosopherPlatowho hypothesized in his dialogue, the Timaeus, that the classical elements were made of these regular solids

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

There are no perfect Platonic solids in the entire universe. They are idealized patterns with very specific values and potentials. They are an ideal abstraction of a truly functional pattern, as much as E = Mc^2
An abstract universal constant.

 

[Michael 345]

The term "quasi-intelligent" qualifies this apparent motivated intelligence as not a sentient being, but a purely implacable mathematical function based on the universal geometrics.

having some resemblance

Mirriam Webster

Resembles Intelligence - but IT IS NOT

You stir up the muddy water just as it is becoming clear

Not needed to compare to sometimes which it isn't because you invite the percentage game

Remember the chimpanzee argument? Chimps are quasi human with over 98% human DNA so we should give them human status

It has been put forward for real

One problem - they are not human

Don't muddy settling water when you don't need to

 

[Michael 345]

Does a "value" need to be physical? What if it is a mathematical pattern, like a Platonic solid.

Thought I was counting things / stuff

If you wish to put a value (number) on a pattern feel free

Abstract art gets sold by abstract values all the time

 

[Write4U]

Remember the chimpanzee argument? Chimps are quasi human with over 98% human DNA so we should give them human status

Absolutely. Chimps are good people, especially the Bonobos.

 

[Michael 345]

Absolutely. Chimps are good people, especially the Bonobos.

NOT people and to call them quasi people would encourage stupid people to think having 98% same DNA is good enough

How would you like to fly in a quasi aircraft, with only 2% missing? After all 2% off isn't much

 

[Write4U]

NOT people and to call them quasi people would encourage stupid people to think having 98% same DNA is good enough

I called them "good" people, not quasi people.

How would you like to fly in a quasi aircraft, with only 2% missing? After all 2% off isn't much

No, an aircraft is a quasi-bird. After all we copied flight from birds...

p.s chickens are good people too. Try to think of 3 bad things chickens do ......see......can't do it.
Chickens are good people.

 

[Michael 345]

No, an aircraft is a quasi-bird. After all we copied flight from birds...

How many aircraft have you flown in which mimic bird airodynamatics?

Good or quasi, a chickens or chimpanzee ain't people

 

[sideshowbob]

Try to think of 3 bad things chickens do ......see......can't do it.

There's nothing about a chicken that a deep fryer can't improve.

 

[Write4U]

How many aircraft have you flown in which mimic bird airodynamatics?

I have two hours flight time in my log-book. Did a few arial maneuvers just like a bird....

Good or quasi, a chickens or chimpanzee ain't people

In a manner of speech......

But it's true, people are actually "apes"..............not the other way around.............